2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Murali Shankar, J
Subbaiyan – Appellant
Versus
Rajalakshmi – Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.37 of 2024

In a suit for specific performance where no time is fixed, the limitation period begins upon notice of refusal. An unregistered sale agreement is admissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and where full consideration is paid and possession transferred, the requirement for pleading continuous readiness is diminished.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(c) and 20 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Suit for specific performance - Agreement for sale - Unregistered agreement - Admissibility - Limitation - Article 54 of Limitation Act - Where no time is fixed for performance of contract, limitation starts from date of refusal - Mere delay in filing suit does not defeat the relief if suit is within limitation - Question of readiness and willingness loses significance when entire consideration is paid and possession is delivered - Appellate Court's scope restricted to substantial questions of law - (Paras 10, 11, 27, 28, 38, 42)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Inconsistent pleas - Where defendant raises mutually destructive pleas, he must elect one - Admissions during cross-examination as to signature on documents preclude denial of execution - (Paras 15, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff alleged the defendant entered into a sale agreement, received the full consideration, and delivered possession of the property. Defendant denied the execution of the agreement, claiming the plaintiff's husband misused blank signed documents obtained for a loan. Lower courts decreed the suit for specific performance, finding the agreement genuine and the suit within limitation. Defendant appealed, challenging the admissibility of the unregistered agreement, the limitation period, and the finding on readiness and willingness.

Findings of Court:
The court found the sale agreement to be genuine and supported by evidence from witnesses. The plea of the defendant regarding blank signed papers was rejected due to lack of proof and contradictory stances. Admission of signatures in other proceedings corroborated the execution of the agreement. The court held that non-registration of an agreement for sale, executed prior to relevant state amendments, does not render it inadmissible in a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The limitation period under Article 54 began from the date of explicit refusal following a legal notice, not from the date of the agreement.

Issues: Whether the unregistered sale agreement is admissible in evidence, whether the suit is barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff proved the requirements for specific performance despite alleged delay.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered sale agreement is admissible in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. When an agreement fixes no date for performance, Article 54 of the Limitation Act mandates that time begins upon the plaintiff's notice of refusal. Where full consideration is paid and possession is handed over, the burden of proving continuous readiness and willingness is significantly reduced, and mere delay does not by itself constitute abandonment of rights.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment of lower courts confirmed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims specific performance of sale agreement for property. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. defendant asserts inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas invalidating agreement. (Para 5 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. high court jurisdiction in second appeal requires substantial question of law. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 47)
4. evidence confirms agreement validity and rejection of defendant's claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. unregistered agreement admissible to prove contract for specific performance. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. limitation starts from date of refusal of performance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. ready and willingness requirement mitigated by payment and possession. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
8. specific performance granted due to conduct and evidence alignment. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 48)

JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.43 of 2021 dated 21.07.2023 on the file of the III^rd Additional District Court, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.305 of 2015 dated 08.10.2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai.

2. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.305 of 2015 before the Subordinate Court, Pattukkottai, claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 06.08.2002 or in alternative refund of the advance amount with interest and costs.

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

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

(a) The plaintiff and the defendant are relatives and belong to the same Village. The defendant offered to sell the suit property and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and both of them entered into a sale agreement on 06.08.2002 fixing the sale price at Rs.1,68,000/-. The plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,68,000/- on the date of agreement itself. The defendant had handed over the possession of the suit property on the same date and also agreed to execute a sale deed when demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of agreement and she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

(b) Since the defendant was evading to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.10.2013, for which, the defendant sent a reply notice dated 25.10.2013 denying the execution of the sale agreement and the receipt of money. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit claiming specific performance or in alternative refund of the advance amount.

5. The defence of the defendant, in short, is as follows:

(a) The defendant has never executed the sale agreement nor received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant approached the plaintiff's husband Appulingam in the year 2002 and obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- to meet out the medical expenses of his sister Padmavathi. At the time of lending loan, the plaintiff's husband obtained signatures of the defendant in blank unfilled stamp papers, unfilled plain papers and unfilled promissory note as security for the loan. The defendant paid the monthly interest without any default by adjusting the coconut price and in the month of June 2013, the defendant paid the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and requested the plaintiff's husband to return all the unfilled blank signed papers but he was delaying to return the same. The defendant stopped selling coconuts to the plaintiff's husband and hence, he enraged. Taking advantage of the signatures obtained from the defendant in blank stamp papers, the plaintiff's husband had created the unregistered suit sale agreement.

(b) The contention of the plaintiff that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract is false and untenable. The correct name of the defendant is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document