Madras High Court
Zameel Ahmed vs Jayashree Narayanan on 5 July, 2021
A.S.No.610 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 22.06.2021
Date of Verdict : 05.07.2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.610 of 2013
and
MP.No.1 of 2013
Zameel Ahmed ... Appellant
Vs.
Jayashree Narayanan ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside comprised in O.S.No.122 of 2008 dated 27.09.2012 on
the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and to set
aside the Judgment and decree made therein dated 27.09.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Balamurugane
For Respondent : Notice Served
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.122 of 2008 dated 27.09.2012 on the file of the learned II
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder
according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that on 12.08.2006, the
defendant had entered into an agreement for sale and agreed to sell the suit
schedule property for the total sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and
received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque dated 22.06.2006 and a
sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as cash in advance. He also agreed to hand over the
original title deeds and other connected documents within a period of two
months to the plaintiff. Whenever, the plaintiff requested the defendant to
perform his part of the contract, the defendant requested the plaintiff to give
some more time. Though the plaintiff has expressed her readiness and
willingness to pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant had not
come forward to hand over the original title deed and also failed to execute
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff caused legal
notice on 29.08.2007, calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
the complaint.
4. Resisting the same, the defendant filed his written statement stating
that he had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for the total sale
consideration of Rs.12,80,000/- on condition that the sale should be
completed by end of July 2006 and the balance sale consideration to be paid
once in a lump sum. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- and
entered into an unregistered agreement for sale for the total sale
consideration of Rs.12,80,000/-. The plaintiff expressed that she is going to
apply for a bank loan and it requires 15 days time for execution of sale
deed. Further, in the first week of September 2006, she expressed that she
was unable to raise the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs and
requested the defendant to refund the advance amount by cancelling the
agreement for sale. Therefore, the defendant informed her to come and
collect the advance amount by the registered letter dated 01.11.2006 which
was received and acknowledged by the defendant on 04.11.2006.
Thereafter, there was no response from the plaintiff and again, the
defendant informed the plaintiff on 25.11.2006 that he is ready with
advance amount and asked her to collect the same. Therefore, the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
violated the conditions of the sale agreement dated 12.08.2006 and as such,
she is not entitled for relief of specific performance and prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
5. On completion of pleadings of the both sides, the Trial Court
framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether the suit is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any cause of action for the
suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at
24% p.a?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
alternative relief?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for judgment
and decree?
6. To what relief the parties are entitled to?”
6. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's power agent was
examined as P.W.1 and documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to A.5. On the
side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and documents were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B15.
7. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant is directed to
receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred this appeal
suit.
8. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff
approached the Court below with unclean hands and failed to produce the
agreement for sale, which was entered between the plaintiff and the
defendant. The original agreement for sale was marked as Ex.B.1 dated
12.08.2006, whereas the copy of the agreement for sale was marked by the
plaintiff as Ex.A.5. The said agreement was prepared only for the purpose
of obtaining loan from the Bank. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant
entered a memorandum of agreement on the same date viz., 12.08.2006,
which was marked as Ex.B.2. Accordingly, the sale consideration was fixed
at Rs.12,80,000/-, in which it was mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-
was received on the date of execution of agreement for sale and the balance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
sale consideration has to be paid by the plaintiff within a period of two
months from the date of agreement, failing which the agreement for sale
shall stand automatically cancelled. He further submitted that the time is
essence of the contract and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of
specific performance. That apart, the plaintiff was never ready and willing
to purchase the suit property by paying the balance sale consideration
within time stipulated in the agreement for sale. Therefore, the suit filed by
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
9. He further submitted that after the expiry of the time as fixed in the
agreement for sale, the defendant duly communicated a letter dated
11.06.2006, thereby calling upon the plaintiff to receive the advance
amount, which was paid by her at the time of entering into the agreement
for sale. In fact, the defendant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- to
his counsel and asked the plaintiff to come and collect the same and the said
communication was also duly received by the plaintiff. Therefore, even
today, the defendant is ready and willing to return back the advance amount
to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff also asked for alternative relief in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
suit for refund of the advance amount with interest.
10. Though notice was served on the plaintiff/respondent and the
name is also printed in the cause list, no one appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff through counsel or in person. Heard the learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant.
11. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeal are as
follows:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract?
(ii) Whether the time is essence of the contract and
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief/
12. Admittedly, there was an agreement for sale entered between the
plaintiff and the defendant dated 12.08.2006. Accordingly, the total sale
consideration was fixed for the suit schedule property at Rs.12,80,000/- and
a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- was paid as an advance. The time fixed for payment
of balance sale consideration and execution of sale deed was two months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
The Power of Attorney of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and stated
that the defendant marked the signature and retained the original and the
plaintiff was given the copy of the said agreement which was marked as
Ex.A.5. The original of the said agreement was marked through D.W.1 as
Ex.B.1. The original does not contain any signature of the witnesses,
whereas, the copy of the same contained one of the witness's signature.
Therefore, only to file the suit, it was forged by the plaintiff. According to
the agreement, the time was fixed as two months for payment of the balance
sale consideration as well as the execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, the
plaintiff applied for bank loan for payment of the balance sale
consideration. In this regard, the Assistant Manager, S.B.I. was examined as
D.W.4 and she deposed that the plaintiff was sanctioned a loan at Rs.9 lakhs
on 04.10.2006. Due to non performance of the part of the contract by the
defendant, the said loan was cancelled subsequently. It does not mean that
the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract.
13. On a perusal of the deposition of D.W.1, it reveals that on
12.08.2006, the plaintiff expressed that she is going for bank loan to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
balance sale consideration within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, in the first
week of September 2006, the plaintiff expressed that she was unable to raise
any loan for the balance sale consideration and requested the defendant to
refund the advance amount by cancelling the sale agreement. Therefore, the
defendant also agreed to refund the advance amount. In fact, the defendant
sent a registered letter on 01.11.2006, which was marked as Ex.B.3 calling
upon the plaintiff to receive back the advance amount and the same was
duly received by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not respond to the
letter issued by the defendant. Again, the defendant sent another letter on
30.11.2006 to receive the advance amount and the same was also duly
acknowledged by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove her
readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract as agreed by
her.
14. As far as the alternative relief is concerned, admittedly the
defendant received a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as an advance on 12.08.2006 and
the defendant is also ready and willing to return the said advance amount
with interest. Considering the above, the plaintiff is entitled for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
alternative relief and that the defendant is directed to refund the advance
amount with interest.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Appeal Suit is partly
allowed. The suit is dismissed as far as the relief of specific performance
against the defendant is concerned. The suit is allowed in respect of the
alternative prayer that the defendant is directed to refund the advance
amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of agreement for sale i.e., on 12.08.2006 till the date of payment to the
plaintiff. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No
order as to costs.
05.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
To
1. The II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
Judgment made in
A.S.No.610 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
A.S.No.610 of 2013
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
