IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 24.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

S.A. No.992 of 2014

S.Sambooranam

W/o.Subbaraya Chettiar

No.23, Santhai Medu,

Sivagiri,

Erode Taluk and District. ... Appellant

Versus

S. Rajasekaran

S/o.Shanmugha Chettiar

Nanjappa Road,

Thavuttupalayam Anthiyur Village,

Bhavani Taluk,

Erode District. ... Respondent

PRAYER in S.A.:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure

Code to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.35 of 2012 dated 04.04.2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani by reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.105 of 2011 dated 16.08.2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani and allow the above

second appeal.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

For Appellant : Mr.S.Kousik for Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2014 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, in A.S.No.35 of 2012, wherein the lower appellate court reversed the decree for specific performance granted by the learned District Munsif Court, Bhavani in O.S.No.105/2011 dated 16.08.2012 and in substitution thereof granted the plaintiff the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount with interest.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the plaintiff’s case: The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. An agreement of sale dated 08.06.2009 was entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff’s son, S.

Santhereswaran, under which the plaintiff’s son agreed to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as advance, and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be paid and the sale completed within a period of one year.

4. The said S. Santhereswaran died on 29.01.2010, leaving behind his mother, the plaintiff, as his sole legal heir. After his demise, the defendant failed to come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff thereupon issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2010 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract; however, the defendant evinced no inclination to complete the sale, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit.

5. Brief facts of the defendant’s case: The defendant contended that though a document dated 08.06.2009 was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff’s son, the sum of Rs.25,000/- received thereunder was only a loan taken for urgent family expenses and not an advance towards sale. It was asserted that the value of the suit schedule property was more than Rs.15,00,000/-, and that there was never any intention on the part of the defendant to sell the property to the plaintiff’s son. It was further contended that interest was paid for a certain period, though no receipt was obtained from the plaintiff’s son. The defendant expressed readiness and willingness to repay the sum of Rs.25,000/- with nominal interest and prayed that only the alternative relief be granted and that the relief of specific performance be refused.

6. The trial court, after framing the necessary issues and conducting the trial, decreed the suit for specific performance. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant filed additional documents, which were received in evidence by the appellate court and marked as Exs.B1 to B10.

7. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and granted the alternative relief by directing the defendant to refund the advance amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest.

8. The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal on the following grounds: the lower appellate court, having found that the execution of the agreem