In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove that he has a valid and enforceable contract with the defendant, and that he has performed or is ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract.

S.A No.511 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A No.511 of 2013

1.Panchatcharam

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Annamalai

2.Rajakumari

...Respondents

PRAYER: This Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure against the Judgement and decree dated 28.02.2012 made in A.S

No. 30 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni at

Thiruvannamalai as reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2011

made in O.S No. 306 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni,

Thiruvannamalai District.

For Appellant: Mr.A.Paramasivam

For R1 & R2: Mr.P.Mani

1

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

S.A No.511 of 2013

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein is the plaintiff in suit O.S No. 306 of 2007

on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arni, Thiruvannamalai, against the

defendants for the relief of specific performance directing them to execute

the sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 02.07.2007 with regard to the

suit property. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the

second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and both of them

contested the suit stated that the suit property is the self acquired property

of the plaintiff's father which is not yet divided, and apart from the plaintiff

first defendant, one Chinnapayan and Ponniammal are legal heirs of their

father. Further, they also stated that they were not entered into agreement

with the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Before the Trial Court both the

parties adduced their respective evidence and to prove the sale agreement

the plaintiff examined one of the attestor of the sale agreement. On

considering submissions on both sides the Trial Court held that sale

agreement is valid one thereby directed the defendants to execute the sale

deed as per the sale agreement and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

2

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

S.A No.511 of 2013

2. Aggrieved and dissatified over the same the defendants

preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Arni in A.S No. 30 of

2011, the lower appellate Court independently analysed the facts and

evidence held that suit property is joint family property in which the

plaintiff's brother and sister have equal share, and the sale agreement Ex.A1

also not been proved by the plaintiff as per manner known to law thereby

concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific

performance accordingly findings rendered by the Trial Court was set aside

and dismissed the suit.

3. Challenging the said findings the plaintiff preferred this

second appeal stated that there was no particulars about the ownership of

the property without such particulars the Court below erroneously held that

suit property is aj oint family property which is absolute unsustainable and

unwarranted and also contended that the defendant not proved the Ex.A1

sale agreement was fraudulently created by the plaintiff through material

evidence in spite of that suit was dismissed which is unfair and liable to be

set aside. Hence he prayed to allow the second appeal. This Court admitted

the second appeal with the following substantial questions of law:

3

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

S.A No.511 of 2013

i. Whether the lower appellate Court erred in setting aside the

judgement of the Trial Court while granting a decree for specific

performance by holding that the pliantiff/appellant herein had satisfied the

requirements as contemplated under the specific relief Act?

ii. Whether the lower appellate Court correct in holding that the

property in question was an undivided one in the absence of a valid

document or decree in the alleged suit for partition?

Iii. Whether the lower Court erred on considering the gr