Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
G. Ezhumalai – Appellant
Versus
R. Angalan – Respondent
S.A.No.660 of 2015 | M.P.No.1 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.M.Naveen
For the Respondents: R.Thiagarajan

An appellate court may grant a money decree for the refund of advance consideration in a specific performance suit, even when specific performance is denied, if the contract was found to be ineffectual or lacking the intention to transfer title, thereby avoiding redundant future litigation.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 17, S. 12, S. 22(3) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - S. 100, S. 103 - Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale executed by one co-sharer without the consent of the other co-sharer - Whether enforceable - Conduct of parties and intention of the agreement - Readiness and willingness - Powers of Appellate Court to grant alternative relief.

Facts of the case:
The respondent (plaintiff) sought specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 31.10.2007 against the appellant (defendant) for a total consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. The defendant claimed the property was a joint family ancestral property belonging to himself and his sister, and the agreement was a sham document created to prevent his sister from claiming a partition, with no actual intention to sell. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court limited the decree to the appellant's undivided half-share in the property.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the agreement was not intended to be a genuine contract of sale due to the suspicious timing fixed for payment of the remaining amount and the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in verifying titles. However, acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 1.09 lakhs as consideration as stated in the registered agreement, and relying on the principle of equity to avoid fresh litigation, the Court granted the plaintiff a money decree for the return of the advance amount with interest, instead of specific performance.

Issues: Whether the sale agreement was valid and enforceable despite the existence of an undisclosed co-sharer; whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform; and whether the court could grant a money decree for the return of earnest money when the specific performance relief was denied.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for specific performance for the entire property by one co-sharer without the consent of others is technically maintainable for that co-sharer's share, but where the court finds the contract was not intended to be a sale and lacks the essential element of readiness and willingness, specific performance should be denied. Under equity and C.P.C. provisions, an alternative money decree for the refund of the earnest money can be granted even without an explicit prayer if justice so necessitates.

Result: Second Appeal allowed; judgment for specific performance set aside; money decree granted for the return of advance amount.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court and first appellate court findings in specific performance dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. framing of issues and determination of substantial questions of law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. contentions of parties regarding intent to sell and readiness to perform. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court's analysis of evidence and the validity of the sale agreement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. legal consequences of executing a sale agreement for joint property without all co-sharers. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. admissibility of specific performance against a vendor with limited title. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. granting alternative relief by ordering the refund of advance money under equity principles. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

---

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2015 made in A.S.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, modifying the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2014 made in O.S.No.165 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Puducherry.

For appellant : M/s.T.M.Naveen

For respondent: Mr.R.Thiagarajan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, dated 17.03.2015, wherein the appellant herein has preferred the said First Appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2014 as against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.165 of 2009, dated 22.08.2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Puducherry.

2. The respondent herein being the plaintiff, has filed the said suit in O.S.No.165 of 2009 for specific performance of the contract and the same was decreed, as against which, First Appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2014 was filed by the defendant and the said A.S. was partly allowed by the first appellate Court and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is as follows: Originally, the suit properties belonged to the defendant's father and he is entitled to the suit properties through sale deed, dated 14.11.1977. The defendant offered to sell the properties to the plaintiff and they have also entered into an agreement of sale for Rs.2 lakhs. The said sale agreement was registered on 02.11.2007. Further, on 31.10.2007, the defendant received a sum of Rs.1.09 lakhs from the plaintiff towards part of sale consideration. The time fixed was 25 months and the remaining amount has to be paid within 25 months. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant was evading to perform his part of the contract by executing the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed as agreed, after receipt of the remaining balance amount.

4. The defendant has filed written statement, denying the plaint averments. According to the defendant, he has admitted the ownership of the properties and the properties were purchased by the defendant's father, namely Gangadharan, who died on 10.03.1992 and the said Gangadharan had one daughter and son, and the defendant and the daughter of Gangadharan are also having share over the properties. The suit properties are joint family properties of the defendant and his sister. The defendant is employed in Canara Bank and so, he leased out the lands in question to one Anjalai, wife of Balasubramanian, who is working as Conductor in a bus. The said Anjalai is none other than the sister of Angalan (plaintiff).

4.1. While so, the sister of the defendant, namely Poorani (elder sister of Ezhumalai) issued notice dated 23.10.2007, claiming half share over the properties. The defendant also issued reply dated 26.10.2007. While th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP. Dhanabal, JG. Ezhumalai – AppellantVersusR. Angalan – RespondentS.A.No.660 of 2015 | M.P.No.1 of 2015

An appellate court may grant a money decree for the refund of advance consideration in a specific performance suit, even when specific performance is denied, if the contract was found to be ineffectual or lacking the intention to transfer title, thereby avoiding redundant future litigation.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
G. Ezhumalai – Appellant
Versus
R. Angalan – Respondent
S.A.No.660 of 2015 | M.P.No.1 of 2015