Advocates:
['R SIVAPRAKASAM D RAMESH KUMAR', '', 'M/S R SIVAPRAKASAM', 'D RAMESH KUMAR', 'M/S A CHANDRASEKAR', '', 'FOR RR', 'M/S A N RAJAN', 'M/S A SUNDARAVADANAN', 'B DYANESWARAN', 'R SERVED', 'R C KUTTIAPPAN', 'V/R NAVEENKUMAR MURTHI', 'S VARSHA', 'PREVIOUS COUNSEL CONSENT', 'MAY BE FURISHED HENCE RETD', 'V/R M/S M ARUN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 30.10.2019

DELIVERED ON : 05.11.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

S.A. No.666 of 2007

1.K.R.Arumugam (Died)

2.A.Pappathi

3.Kalpana

4.Prakash

...

Appellants

(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on

record as LRs of the deceased

sole

Appellant

viz.,

K.R.Arumugam vide order of Court

dated

26.07.2019

made

in

CMP.No.1570 to 1572 of 2018)

Vs

1.P.Semmalar

2.S.Periyasamy

3.P.Parimaladevi

4.C.Kuttiappan

... Respondents

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the

judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge at Erode in

A.S.No.45 of 2006 dated 04.12.2006 modifying the decree and

Judgment of the I^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in

O.S.No.482 of 1998 dated 16.07.2004.

For Appellants 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Sivaprakasam

For Respondents 1 to 3

: Mr.A.Sundaravadanan

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed challenging the

Judgement and decree dated 04.12.2006 passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S.No.45 of 2006 modifying

the judgement and decree dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned

First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S.No.482 of 1998.

2.

This Court had admitted this second appeal on

16.07.2007 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate

Court that the agreement of sale entered into was not

for the benefit of the third defendant – minor and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the same is not binding upon her, is erroneous and

contrary to the evidence available on record.”

Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal:

3.

The Appellants are the legal representatives of the

plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.482 of 1998 filed against the

respondents who are the defendants seeking specific performance

of an agreement of sale dated 22.05.1998 entered into between

the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3.

4.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

described as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

5.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed to

sell the suit schedule properties in his favour under an

agreement for sale dated 22.05.1998. As seen from the plaint, it

is the case of the plaintiff that he has paid an advance of

Rs.60,000/- on the date of agreement and Rs.40,000/- thereafter,

totally amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, out of the total sale

consideration of Rs.2,34,600/-. It is also pleaded in the plaint

that the defendants 2 and 3 are unmarried daughters of the first

defendant and that the first defendant has executed the sale

agreement in favour of the plaintiff for himself and on behalf

of his minor daughter, the third defendant, along with the

second defendant. As seen from the plaint, it is his case that

the suit schedule properties are owned only by the first

defendant and the defendants 2 and 3 have been added as parties

only by way of abundant caution. It is also the case of the

plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 3 have illegally sold the

suit schedule properties to the fourth defendant on 22.06.1998,

despite the existence of prior sale agreement dated 22.05.1998

in favour of the plaintiff. It is also his case that he was

always ready and willing to perform his part of the sale

agreement dated 22.05.1998. But it is his case that since the

defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed, he was

constrained to file a suit for specific performance.

6.

However, it is the case of the first defendant as seen

from his written statement that there was no sale agreement with

the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the attestor to

the alleged sale agreement had lent money to the first defendant

and as a security for the same, the first defendant has signed

in blank papers which were misused by the plaintiff.

7.

The third defendant who was a minor at the time of

execution