S.A(MD)No.144 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 03.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

S.A(MD)No.144 of 2017

and

C.M.P(MD)No.2268 of 2017

Natarajan

S/o.Ramaiyah

Rep.by his Power Agent

Jeyasankar,

S/o.Natarajan

...Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff

vs

1.Mary

2.Juliet Anthonyraj

...Respondents / Appellants /

Defendants

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,

against the judgment and decreetal order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the

Principal District Court, Thanjavur made in A.S.No.57 of 2012, by modifying

the Decree and judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the

file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Thanjavur.

For Appellant

: Mr.G.Karnan

For Respondents : Mr..A.Ebenezer

1/12

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

S.A(MD)No.144 of 2017

O R D E R

The suit in O.S.No.1 of 2010 has been filed by the plaintiff / appellant for

specific performance directing the defendants / respondents to receive the

balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed or alternatively to pay

the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendants are the owners of the

property. In order to develop the land and divided the land into housing plots,

they have taken steps, but the defendants were not having liquid cash, hence,

the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land from the defendants. In view of the

above, on 27.03.2008 the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a sale

agreement with regard to the suit property. The said sale agreement was

marked as Ex.A1 and the sale price was fixed at Rs.2,44,150/-. The plaintiff

has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as advance and subsequently, on 15.07.2008 the

plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as part of balance amount for

sale consideration and has also made an endorsement in the sale agreement.

Subsequently, the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount,

but the defendants have refused to receive the balance sale consideration and to

execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has sent a legal notice on

20.11.2009 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving

2/12

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

S.A(MD)No.144 of 2017

the balance sale consideration. After receiving the notice the defendants sent a

reply with denying the execution of the sale agreement as false allegation.

Therefore, the plaintiff has preferred the present suit.

3. The contention of the defendants is that in order to develop the land,

the defendants had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and after

sometime, they were ready and willing to pay back the amount along with

interest in cash, but the plaintiff had refused to receive the same and demanded

to execute the sale deed regarding the plots. Hence, the dispute arose between

the plaintiff and the defendants.

4. The trial Court has allowed and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the

said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.

57 of 2012 before the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. The Appellate Court

has reversed the said judgment and decree. Aggrieved over the same, the

plaintiff is before this Court raising the following substantial question of law:

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court finding is correct when the

execution of document itself is admitted by the Defendant?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court finding that the plaintiff has

not proved his case is correct, when the plaintiff has examined the

PW 2 and PW3 who are all attesting witnesses?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court finding that the burden of

proof will not shift to defendants is correct even after the

3/12

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

S.A(MD)No.144 of 2017

examination of PW 2 and PW3?

5. The Appellate Court has relied on Ex.A1 and has held that the plaint

has not stated the details