Murugan vs Santhanam - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 1080

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
For the Respondents: No appearance

Table of Content
1. procedural setup and substantial questions on specific performance proof (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. background of cross-suits and lower court proceedings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. challenges to agreement validity, possession, readiness (Para 15)
4. ex.a1 and a2 not proved; no part performance possession (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. no readiness, willingness; delay bars specific performance (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. no bar under tenants act or tpa section 106 (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
7. plaintiff bears proof burden; section 69 evidence act unmet (Para 34 , 35)
8. appeals allowed; trial decrees restored (Para 36)

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.These second appeals are at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 343 of 2011 and 7^th defendant in O.S.No.287 of 2011.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. I have heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in both the second second appeals.

4. Though the respondents have been served and the first respondent in the second appeals also entered appearance through