IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

V.Govindaraj

S/o Kutti,

Door No.143/144 B

Iyerkadu, Periya Semur,

Sukkiramaniagoundenvalasu,

Erode Taluk, Erode District.

Appellant(s)

Vs

S.Nagarajan

S/o V.M.Shanmugam,

Door No.18, Karikalan Street,

Ashokapuram, Erode Erode Taluk,

Erode District. Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 made in A.S.No.53 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Court, Erode in confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013 made in O.S.No.317 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Erode by allowing the present

second appeal.

For Appellant(s): M/s.C.Ramaraju for Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent(s): Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan

JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed by the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.53 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Erode.

2. The respondent herein, being the plaintiff, has filed the suit, being O.S.No.317 of 20211, for specific performance and the same was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree made in O.S.No.317 of 2011, the appellant has preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.53 of 2014. By judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015, the first appeal was dismissed, by confirming the judgment dated

28.10.2013 made in O.S.No.317 of 2011.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the suit property and both the plaintiff and the defendant have entered into an agreement for sale of the property by fixing the sale price as Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) and the defendant has also received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) as advance and to that effect, they have also recited in the agreement dated 15.05.2009. It is stated that the time fixed for completion of the contract is thirty (30) months. Thereafter, when the plaintiff requested the defendant for execution of sale deed, the defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a notice dated 09.07.2011 to the defendant. After the receipt of the said notice, the defendant has given a false reply dated 18.07.2011. Thereafter, the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract property.

5. The case of the defendant is that, the defendant has approached the mother of the plaintiff, namely, Pavayammal for obtaining a loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and the plaintiff's mother had insisted the defendant to hand over the original title deed to the plaintiff, for which, the defendant had also executed Power of Attorney in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. It is also stated that in the month of December, 2010, the defendant has repaid the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Prior to the payment of said amount, the defendant has also paid interest of Rs.1,500/- per month to the mother of the plaintiff for the loan amount of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only). When the defendant demanded for return of documents after the repayment of the borrowed money, the plaintiff and his mother demanded interest of Rs.5/- per Rs.100/- per month for an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). Thereafter, the defendant has cancelled the Power of Attorney and also issued a notice for return of documents. The plaintiff and his mother have issued a false reply. The defendant had never executed any sale agreement and received money as alleged in the plaint. It is also submitted that the defendant has never received any receipt or consent deed and therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Based on the above said pleadin