Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
S. Raghul – Appellant
Versus
V. Latha – Respondent
C.S.No.78 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Aswin Karthikeyan
For the Respondents: Prabu

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform all reciprocal promises. Where such proof is lacking, the specific performance claim is rejected, but a refund of the advance may be granted under equity if the defendant admits liability.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(c) and 22(3) - Suit for Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Requirement of proving reciprocal promises in contract - Plaintiff failed to establish readiness to perform reciprocal obligation of executing a sale deed for an alternate property - Held, relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable, requiring strict proof of continuous readiness and willingness - Where defendant admits receipt of advance, court may, in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, grant a money decree for return of advance even in the absence of a specific alternate prayer, provided the defendant does not dispute the liability to repay. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Parties entered into a sale agreement dated 01.01.2022 for property for Rs.1,10,00,000/-, part of which was to be satisfied by the plaintiff transferring another property to the defendant. Plaintiff alleged the defendant evaded executing the sale deed despite his readiness. Defendant contended the agreement was unregistered, challenged the description of property, and argued the plaintiff failed to perform reciprocal obligations.

Findings of Court:
Court held the unregistered agreement was admissible for specific performance under exceptions to registration laws. However, it found the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to execute the reciprocal sale of the Aminjikarai property. The request for Specific Performance was dismissed, but a money decree for Rs.50,00,000/- with interest was granted based on the defendant's admission and equity.

Issues: Whether the sale agreement was valid; whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific Performance.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of a contract, including reciprocal promises. Failure to do so precludes a decree for specific performance. However, where the defendant admits the receipt of advance money and liability to refund it, the court may grant a money decree under equity despite the lack of a prayer for alternate relief.

Result: Suit for Specific Performance dismissed; Money decree granted for Rs.50,00,000/--.

Table of Content
1. factual background and respective contentions of the parties in a specific performance suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. admissibility of unregistered sale agreements in specific performance suits. (Para 8)
3. requirement of proving readiness and willingness for reciprocal contractual obligations. (Para 9)
4. granting equitable money decree based on admission of liability. (Para 10)

Prayer:

Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Order 4 Rule 1 of Original Side Rules to pass Judgment and Decree:

a) For Specific performance against the defendant directing her to execute a sale deed in respect of suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- from the plaintiff within the time prescribed by this Court failing which, this Court may be pleased to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit mentioned property;

b) Directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff.

J U D G M E N T

This suit has been filed for the relief of Specific Performance to direct the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of promoting flats along with his father in the name of M/s Bhagya Builders and M/s Lakshmi Homes. In the month of December, 2021, the defendant offered to sell the property and the plaintiff also approached the defendant thereby, the plaintiff decided to purchase the property and entered into agreement for sale for the sale price of Rs.1,10,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore and ten Lakhs].

(ii) On 25.12.2021, as a token advance, for the sale price, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- through Cheque and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into sale agreement dated 01.01.2022 and the time fixed for completion of sale is three months. The sale price was fixed at Rs.1,10,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore and ten Lakhs]. The plaintiff offered to allot one Flat to the defendant in Flat No.F2, First Floor with built up area of 630 sq.ft., together with undivided share of land to an extent of 263 Sq.Ft., situated at Door No.10/20, Indirani Lane, Ayyavoo Naidu Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 and the defendant also agreed to purchase the said property by fixing the sale price of Rs.60,00,000/-. The said sum of Rs.60,00,000/- was adjusted from the above sale consideration and after adjusting the token advance of Rs.2,00,000/- paid on 25.12.2021, the balance of sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within the tenure of sale agreement.

(iii) As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff has paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- to the defendant on various dates. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- by making her endorsement on the back side of the original agreement dated 01.01.2022, on 18.01.2022, in the presence of two witnesses. After receipt of the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, the defendant informed that the original documents of the suit property are under the custody of Cholamandalam Finance Limited for the loan availed by her and undertook to handover the original documents within 15 days. Thereafter, the defendant failed to handover the said documents, thereby the plaintiff visited the house of the defendant on 31.01.2022, but the defendant was not available. In the meantime, the defendant insisted the plaintiff to pay the sale price of Rs.60,00,000/- instead of purchasing the property mentioned in the agreement, which is located at Indirani Lane, Ayaavoo Colony, Aminjikarai and the plaintiff also arranged the said money of Rs.60 Lakhs,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP. Dhanabal, JS. Raghul – AppellantVersusV. Latha – RespondentC.S.No.78 of 2022

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform all reciprocal promises. Where such proof is lacking, the specific performance claim is rejected, but a refund of the advance may be granted under equity if the defendant admits liability.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J
S. Raghul – Appellant
Versus
V. Latha – Respondent
C.S.No.78 of 2022