A.S..No.179 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated :24.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

Appeal Suit No. 179 of 2019

C.Muthiah (Died)

1.Padmavathi

2.M.Jegatha

.. Appellants

Versus

T.Thilagavathi

.. Respondent

Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, prayed to set aside the order and Decree dated 05.07.2018

made in O.S.No.20 of 2010, passed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Thiruvallur.

For Appellant

:

Mr. G. Karthikeyan

For Respondent

:

Mr. R. Prem Narayan

J U D G M E N T

The appellants have preferred this appeal suit against the Judgment and

Decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in O.S. No.

20 of 2010 dated 05.07.2018.

2. As the legal heirs of the deceased Muthiah, the appellants have

preferred this appeal challenging the findings in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file

of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, against the respondent herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S..No.179 of 2019

3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff / Muthiah for the relief of

specific performance directing the respondent/defendant to executed the sale

deed as per the sale agreement dated 09.07.2005. The said suit was contested

by the defendant stating that there was an agreement on 09.07.2005 between

the plaintiff/Muthiah and the defendant and he received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as

advance. As per the agreement, within a period of six months the plaintiff has

to perform his part of the contract. i.e., on or before 09.01.2009. But after

completion of the said period the plaintiff has not taken any steps. Only on

09.01.2009, after three years he filed the suit thereby the suit is bared by

limitation. Further he also contended that the defendant has already issued

notice on 16.07.2009 to receive the amount paid by the plaintiff/Muthiah and

also asked him to vacate the suit property as they are tenant under her.

Therefore, the defendant prayed that the suit is bared by limitation and the

plaintiff has not been ready to perform his part of the contract.

4. Before the trial Court, both the parties adduced oral and documentary

evidence. Based on that the learned trial Judge framed two main issues. First is

whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance and

whether the suit is bared under Section 54 of Limitation Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S..No.179 of 2019

5. On considering both side evidence the learned trial Judge concluded

that there is no proof that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his

part of the contract. After issuance of the notice by the defendant nearly after

lapse of about 4 years of the agreement the plaintiff has filed the suit stating

that he was ready and willing to perform the contract as such is totally false.

Therefore, the trial court held that the plaintiff/Muthiah was not ready and

willing to perform his part of the contract besides that the suit is also bared by

Limitation and dismissed the suit. Challenging the said findings the plaintiff

has preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiff submitted that the

plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the agreement, for which they

approached the Court. But the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the facts

of the case and erroneously dismissed the suit.

7. By way of reply the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant

submitted that originally plaintiff namely Muthiah (deceased) was a tenant

under her. Subsequently he entered into agreement for sale, but he has not

complied with the terms of agreement. The agreement provides for

performance of the contract within a stipulated period, which the deceased

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S..No.179 of 2019

plaintiff failed to adhere to. However, after four years, he approached the

Court as such is totally barred by Limitation.

8. Admittedly the propert