BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 25.02.2022

DELIVERED ON : 03.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

A.S(MD).No.185 of 2018

and C.M.P(MD)No.11127 of 2018

S.Govindarajan ... Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

P.Natarajan ... Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer : This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil

Procedure Code r/w Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C, against the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the

Principal District Court, Dindigul, dated 22.08.2017

For Appellant : Mr.N.Sathish Babu

For Respondent : Mr.S.Elangovan

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and

decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, dated

22.08.2017 in O.S.No.18 of 2014. The appellant is the defendant.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance based

upon a registered sale agreement dated 18.09.2012 executed between

the plaintiff and the defendant for a sale consideration of

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) in respect of the suit

property. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten

lakhs only) was paid as an advance amount on the date of the sale

agreement itself and two years time period was agreed for paying the

balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only)

and get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff was all along ready

and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only); on 13.07.2014, he

issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to receive the

balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, since the

defendant refused to execute the sale deed in accordance with the

terms of the sale agreement he has filed this suit for specific

performance.

1/5

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

3.The defendant contested the suit by alleging that the sale

agreement was not executed with an intention to convey the suit

property. Despite a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only)

was paid as an advance on the date of the sale agreement, the

plaintiff demanded the defendant to return the said amount

subsequently by stating that he was not interested in purchasing the

suit property. However, the plaintiff agreed to consider the said

amount as loan and demanded the defendant to return the same with

interest. Even after the defendant paid back the amount, the

plaintiff refused to cancel the sale agreement and filed the suit by

suppressing the real facts.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge has

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 18.09.2012 alleged to

have been entered into between the plaintiff and the

defendant is true, valid and legal?

2. Whether the defendant had executed the suit sale

agreement dated 18.09.2012 as security for the loan

transaction?

3. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to pay

the balance sale price and get the sale deed executed and

registered?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

specific performance?

5. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

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

witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were

marked. On the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined

as D.W.1 and D.W.3 and four documents were marked as Ex.B.1 and

Ex.B.4.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the

materials available on record, the learned trial Judge has decreed

the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved over that, the defendant has

preferred this Appeal Suit.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the learned trial Judg