A.S.(MD)No.147 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

A.S.(MD)No.147 of 2018

S.Shenbagaraj

... Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

M.Dhanabal

... Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure

Code, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.130 of 2014

on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli

District, dated 21.11.2017.

For Appellant

: Mr.D.Srinivasa Ragavan

For Respondent

: Mr.P.Arun Jayatram

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and

decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli,

dated 21.11.2017 made in O.S.No.130 of 2014.

2.The appellant was the defendant in the suit; the

respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money based upon

an agreement for sale; as per the averments of the plaint, on

08.02.2014, a sale agreement was entered into between the plaintiff

and the defendant to sell the suit property for value of

Rs.60,00,000/-; on the date of sale agreement itself, the plaintiff

had given the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant; for

the payment of balance sale consideration and get the sale deed

executed, time was agreed till 31.08.2014; the defendant had assured

to produce the original document of the suit property after his wife

returned from abroad; but the defendant was evading to show the

original title deed and hence, it was not possible to proceed

further; however, at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff

paid further part sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- on 20.02.2014

and another Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.05.2014; when the endorsement was

made to that effect in the sale agreement, the defendant refused to

make his signature in acknowledgement thereof; since the defendant

did not take any step to get the sale completed as per the terms of

the sale agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the

advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest.

1/4

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

A.S.(MD)No.147 of 2018

3.The defendant resisted the suit by stating that he was all along

ready to perform his part of the contract and even on 12.08.2014

itself, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and he issued reply

notice dated 15.08.2014; that would show his readiness and

willingness to perform his part of contract; the alleged further

payments of Rs.15,00,000/- on 20.02.2014 and a further sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.05.2014 are false; except Rs.20,00,000/-, which

was received on the date of sale agreement, no further sale

consideration was received by the defendant; the sale could not be

completed only due to the default of the plaintiff and hence, the

suit should be dismissed.

4.Basing upon the above pleading, the learned trial Judge framed the

follwing issues:-

1.Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the

case?

2.Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim

recovery of advance amount, since the plaintiff filed

suit before even completed time for agreement?

3.Whether the defendant case is acceptable one without

cancel the sale agreement the plaintiff is not entitled

to get the recovery of advance amount?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of

refund of advance amount with rate of interest as prayed

for?

5.To what any other relief the plaintiff is entitled

for?

5.During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one

witness was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked; on the

side of the defendant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no

document was marked.

6.At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence on

record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for payment of a

sum of Rs.21,26,666/- to the plaintiff with interest for the

principal sum of Rs.20,00,000/- at the rate of 9