Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40138
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J
Tmt.Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
G.Ramanibai (died) – Respondent
Second Appeal | S.A.Nos.689 & 690 of 2017
For the Appellant: Mr.L.Dhamodaran
For the Respondents: Mr.Venkataseshan, Mr.V.V.Sathya, Mr.T.Easwaradhas
Specific performance of a contract requires proof of readiness and willingness, and failure to act within the limitation period renders the agreement unenforceable.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Specific Relief Act - Section 16(3) - Dispute over a sale agreement and its enforceability - Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 14.07.1997, which was deemed unenforceable due to lapse of time and failure to prove readiness and willingness - Court affirmed the lower appellate court's decision dismissing the appellant's suit and decreeing the respondent's suit. (Paras 10, 16, 19)
(B) Limitation - The suit was filed well after the limitation period, rendering the agreement unenforceable - The court emphasized the necessity of proving readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations in seeking specific performance. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking to enforce a sale agreement against the respondents, who contested its validity citing a release deed executed by a co-owner. The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether the lower court correctly found the appellant had not proven readiness to perform the contract and whether the suit was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sale agreement had become unenforceable due to the expiration of the limitation period and the appellant's failure to prove readiness to perform her obligations.
Result: Both Second Appeals are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and their origins. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. details of the suits and the agreements involved. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. discussion on the appellant's failure to prove readiness and the limitation period. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 4. final ruling and dismissal of the appeals. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in A.S.Nos.10 & 11 of 2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3. Before the Trial Court, XIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, there are two suits. O.S.No.1260 of 2011 is filed by one Bakthavatchalam against Vijayalakshmi and G.Ramanibai. The said Ramanibai is the sister of Bakthavatchalam who alleged to have entered into an agreement of sale with Vijayalakshmi. The said Vijayalakshmi filed O.S.No.9164 of 2011 against the brother and sister namely the plaintiff and the second defendant in the above suit.
3 (a) The prayer in the above suit in O.S.No.1260 of 2011is to declare the registered sale agreement dated 14.07.1997 as unenforceable, null and void and to cancel the same on the ground that since the sister has executed release deed in respect of 1/3rd of her share in favour of the plaintiff brother Bakthavatchalam.
3(b) The prayer in O.S.No.9164 of 2011 is filed by the agreement holder Vijayalakshmi (said to have executed by sister Ramanibai in her favour) to declare the release deed dated 27.05.2010 executed by the first defendant (sister in favour of the second defendant) brother as invalid, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff with further prayer directing the Ramanibai to execute the sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd undivided share in favour of the plaintiff upon deposit of Rs.4,55,000/- towards balance of sale consideration failing which court may direct to executed the sale deed and for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant (brother) from alienating or encumbering the suit property.
4. On filing of memo, both the suits were taken up for joint trial and oral and documentary evidence were recorded in the first suit namely O.S.No.1260 of 2011 filed by the brother against sister and the agreement holder to declare the registered sale agreement dated 14.07.1997 as null and void and unenforceable.
5. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 (Bakthavatchalam) was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, husband of the first defendant Vijayalakshmi was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
6. The learned Trial Court, based upon the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that date of filing of the suit in O.S.No.1260 of 2011 gives rise to cause of action and accordingly, decreed the suit filed by the agreement holder Vijayalakshmi in O.S.No.9164 of 2011 and dismissed the suit filed by the brother Bakthavatchalam in O.S.No.1260 of 2011.
7. A.S.No.10 of 2015 is filed against O.S.No.9164 of 2011 and A.S.No.11 of 2015 is filed against O.S.No.1260 of 2011 before the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. After hearing the parties, by judgment dated 16.09.2016, the learned Additional Judge, allowed the suit filed by Bakthavatchalam in O.S.No.1260 of 2011 and dismissed the suit filed by agreement holder Vijayalakshmi in O.S.No.9164 of 2011 and hence S.A No.690 of 2017 is filed against A.S.No.11 of 2015 against O.S.No.1260 of 2011 and S.A.No.689 of 2017 is filed against A.S.No.10 of 2015 against O.S.No.9146 of 2011.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
9. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law are framed -
(a) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in rendering the finding that the plaintiff has not averred and proved her readiness and willingness in performing her part of the agreement ?
(b) Whether the first respondent was accrued with any cause of action to file the suit bearing O.S.No.1260 of 2011 in the absence of
