Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Muralishankar, J
T.A.Mariappan – Appellant
Versus
A.G.Loganath – Respondent
S.A.(MD).No.359 of 2020 | C.M.P.(MD)No.4230 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.Barathan
For the Respondents: T.C.S.Thillainayagam

A defendant who fails to file a cross-objection or cross-appeal against adverse findings in the trial court cannot challenge those findings in a second appeal to obtain a more favorable position than the original decree.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 16(c), S. 20 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 54 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. XLI R. 22 - Specific performance - Discretionary relief - Readiness and willingness - Non-joinder of parties - Adverse inference - Appellate court scope.

(B) Appellate court found the trial court's findings to be mutually inconsistent where it held documents genuine but simultaneously treated them as security documents without evidence. Appellate court affirmed plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance upon proving full consideration payment and possession. (Para 9, 22)

(C) Under O. XLI R. 22, defendants are precluded from challenging findings on limitation and non-joinder of parties in the second appeal if they failed to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection against the trial court's adverse findings. (Para 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellants (defendants) entered into a sale agreement and executed sale-related documents including power of attorney in favor of the respondent (plaintiff) for housing board plots. The defendants later demanded additional payment. The trial court rejected specific performance but ordered refund of the advance, while the first appellate court restored the decree for specific performance.

Findings of Court:
The court held that once the genuineness of the documents is established, they cannot be dismissed as mere security documents without independent evidence. Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of a concluded contract, and the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness.

Issues: Whether the appellate court correctly granted specific performance despite the defendants' claim of a loan transaction; whether the suit was barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'nemo dat quod non habet' regarding property title was held inapplicable due to the defendants' admitted signatures and execution of documents. Adverse inference was drawn against the defendant for failing to testify, and the specific relief granted is within the sound discretion of the court after balancing parties' conduct.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed; First appellate court judgment confirmed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of suit facts and prior proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. appellate scope concerning failure to challenge adverse findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. enforceability of contracts and judicial discretion in specific performance. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. evidence assessment and proof of plaintiff's readiness. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.1 of 2019, dated 02.12.2019, on the file of VI Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree, passed in O.S.No.389 of 2011, dated 27.09.2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.389 of 2011, before the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, claiming the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.01.2004 or in alternative for refund of the advance amount with interest.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

(a) The suit properties in Plot Nos.19 and 20 and other plots in Tamil Nadu Housing Board colony, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai were allotted to the Mela Anuppanadi Small Merchants Association by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in auction cum tender. The defendants 1 and 2 obtained allotment of Plot Nos.19 and 20 respectively from the association by bidding for a higher price and they paid the entire amount to the Association and hence, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board handed over the possession to them. The defendants approached the plaintiff during December last week of 2003 and offered to sell the suit plots and the plaintiff agreeing for the same, entered into a sale agreement dated 04.01.2004 fixing the sale price at Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. The defendants jointly received Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance amount. Both parties have agreed that the plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the thatched shed with tin sheet before 30^th day of Thai, Tamil month. The defendants have agreed to execute the sale deeds after the Housing Board executed the sale deeds in favour of the Association and after the Association executed the sale deeds in their favour. The defendants have received further advance of Rs.50,000/- on 29.01.2004 and the same was endorsed in the sale agreement.

(b) As per the terms of the sale agreement, the first defendant received the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,11,000/- and executed an unregistered sale deed and a registered power of attorney deed on 04.02.2004. On the same day, the second defendant also received the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,74,000/- and executed an unregistered sale deed and a registered power of attorney deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have handed over the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff on 04.02.2004. The first defendant gave separate notarised letteres to the President of Chinna Anupanadi panchayat to mutate house tax assessment for the tin sheet shed in Plot Nos.19 in favour of the plaintiff and also to change the service connection for the tin sheet shed in the name of the plaintiff to the TNEB. When the plaintiff approached the defendants to execute sale deeds, they used to say that they were taking steps to get the sale deed from the Association in their names and then they would execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff. On 06.03.2011, the plaintiff approached the defendants and at that time, the defendants illegally demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as additional amount to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied for encumbrance certificates and came to know that the defendants obtained sale deeds in their names on 21.04.2004 itself.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASK.Muralishankar, JT.A.Mariappan – AppellantVersusA.G.Loganath – RespondentS.A.(MD).No.359 of 2020 | C.M.P.(MD)No.4230 of 2020

A defendant who fails to file a cross-objection or cross-appeal against adverse findings in the trial court cannot challenge those findings in a second appeal to obtain a more favorable position than the original decree.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Muralishankar, J
T.A.Mariappan – Appellant
Versus
A.G.Loganath – Respondent
S.A.(MD).No.359 of 2020 | C.M.P.(MD)No.4230 of 2020