IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

1. V.Dhanapal Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Tmt.Rajaathi

2.K.Balasubramaniam Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in A.S.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 in O.S.No.529 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore and decree the suit in O.S.No.529/2005.

For Appellant(s): Mr T. Murugamanickam Senior Counsel For Mr B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr S. Mukund, Senior Counsel For M/S.SARVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES FOR RR1 AND 2

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit has been filed for seeking relief of specific performance.

2. The trial Court had decreed the suit as against which a first appeal was preferred by the defendants. The first appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgmemt of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

SHORT CASE PLEADED IN THE PLAINT:

2.1. The suit property belongs to one Kandasamy. He initially agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.4,44,000/-

and a sale agreement has been entered on 09.07.1997 and on the date of the sale agreement a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was received as advance and the sale deed was agreed to be executed within a period of one year. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also made part payments on 19.03.1998 and 25.03.1998 towards the part sale consideration. The plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 01.07.2005 to one Kandasamy and that has been received. As no reply has been sent and the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

WRITTEN STATEMENT IN BRIEF:

2.2. The written statement has been filed by the second defendant adopted by the first defendant. The sale agreement is admitted by the defendants. It is also admitted that the plaintiff has made payments of Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.07.1997 and Rs.25,000/- on 19.03.1998 and Rs.50,000/- on 25.03.1998 totally Rs.1,75,000/- as an advance amount. But it is false to say that one year period has been extended for performing the contract subsequently. In fact, the second defendant's father had extended the time limit for six months after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.09.1998. Even thereafter, the plaintiff has not come forward to complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff did not have whereabouts to pay the balance sale consideration and the suit is also barred by limitation. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed.

TRIAL COURT:

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues:

1/ thjp jhthtpy; nfhhpathW Vw;wij Mw;Wf ghpfhuk; bgw mUfuh>

2/ fhyhtjp njh#j;jhy; jhth js;Sgo Mfj; jf;fjh>

3/ thjpf;F fpl;Lk; ghpfhuk; ahJ>

4. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness viz., Dhanapal was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked and on the side of the defendants, one witnees viz., Balasubramaniam was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 was marked.

5. On considering the evidence on record, the trial Court had decreed the suit.

L OWER A PPELLATE COURT:

6. The first appeal has been preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment of the trial Court which was allowed by set asiding the judgment of the trial Court and by dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:

“(i)Whether the learned District Judge had travelled beyond the pleadings by way of written statement and proof by way of D.W.1 to dismiss the suit ?

(ii)Whether the learned District Judge had committed a grave error in disbelieving the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants had received a part of sale consideration on 09.02.2004 and hence the su