A.S.No.989 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.02.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

A.S.No.989 of 2014

MP No.1 of 2014 and MP No.1 of 2015

S.Chennaian

... Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

1. A.Akbar Basha

2. A.Amjath Basha

3. M.Julekha Bi

... Respondents /Plaintiffs

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure

against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2014 rendered in O.S.No.40 of

2012 on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

For Appellants

:

Mr.V.Ayyaduari

For Respondents

:

Mr.K.Venkatasubban

For Sarvabhauman

and Associates for R1 to R3

Page 1 of 34

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

A.S.No.989 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

Defendant in the suit in O.S.No.40 of 2012 on the file of

Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, is the appellant in the above appeal.

2.

Respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.40 of

2012 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 09.02.2012.

The case of the respondents / Plaintiffs is that the suit property belongs to

the appellant and that he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs for

a sale consideration of Rs.80,43,750/- at the rate of 3250 per Sq.ft. The suit

property measuring to an extent of 2475 Sq.ft. (22.5 x 110) in Survey

No.918 and 794 in Boohanapalli Village, Krishnagiri District. The suit

property is also described with reference to four boundaries indicating that

the appellant is holding his shop building and home on the western side.

3.

It is stated that the plaintiffs paid an advance of Rs.25,00,000/-

Page 2 of 34

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

A.S.No.989 of 2014

on the date of agreement and agreed to pay the balance of sale

consideration, the sum of Rs.55,43,750/- on or before 02.04.2012. It is the

further case of the plaintiff that on 30.03.2012, the plaintiffs approached the

defendant in the morning and requested him to receive the balance of sale

consideration and execute the sale deed at the cost of plaintiffs and that the

defendant refused to execute the sale deed on the ground that he was unable

to convince his family members who were objecting. It is stated further in

the plaint that the plaintiffs issued a telegraphic notice dated 25.02.2012,

calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the

sale deed on 02.04.2012. However, the defendant issued a reply notice dated

31.03.2012 by Courier which was delivered to the plaintiff on 02.04.2012.

In the said reply, the defendant stated that the plaintiffs were not ready and

willing to perform their part of contract and the agreement is rescinded and

advance amount stood forfeited. It is also stated that the family members of

the defendants are also objecting to the execution of the sale deed. Hence,

the plaintiffs stated that they were constrained to file the suit for specific

performance. It is also mentioned in the plaint that before filing the suit the

plaintiffs had deposited the balance of sale consideration into the bank

Page 3 of 34

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

A.S.No.989 of 2014

account on 03.04.2012 as the amount could not be deposited on 02.04.2012

due to the closure of bank on account of year ending. The suit was contested

by the defendant / appellant by denying every averments in the plaint. The

appellant described the agreement as an uncertain and contingent contract

by stating that measurements were not taken and that the defendant should

vacate the tenants which did not happen.

4.

In the written statement, the main defence taken is that the

plaintiffs were not always ready and willing to perform the essential

condition as promised and that he was forced to cancel the agreement only

on account of the unwillingness of the plaintiff to perform their contract. It

is also stated that the defendant was in urgent