Pandiyammal vs Nallathangal
2021 Latest Caselaw 6403 Mad

                                                                                S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 10.03.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                               S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021
                                                       and
                                             C.M.P.(MD)No.1851 of 2021

                   Pandiyammal                                                 ... Appellant

                                                       versus

                   1. Nallathangal
                   2. Ganesan                                                  ... Respondents

                             Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
                   Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2019 made in A.S.No.26 of 2019 on the file
                   of the Sub Court, Manamadurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated
                   17.11.2017 made in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District
                   Munsif Court, Manamadurai.


                             For Appellant       :   Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan



                                                     JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1 of 2014 is on appeal. The challenge is to

the concurrent Judgments and decrees of the Courts below in and by which the

claim for specific performance made by the plaintiff was rejected.

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

2. The plaintiff sued for specific performance treating two

documents dated 21.08.1990 said to have been executed by the first defendant

as agreements of sale. According to the plaintiff, the entire consideration

payable under those two instruments was paid on the date of the said

instruments and nothing remain to be paid. She, however, issued a notice on

19.12.2013 demanding specific performance after 23 years and she filed the

suit for specific performance by presenting a plaint on 02.01.2014.

3. The suit was resisted on the ground that the first defendant was

not the absolute owner of the property. It was also contended that the

agreements were not executed by the first defendant. It was the further

contention that the unregistered documents are not invalid in law.

3. At trial, the husband of the plaintiff Mayandi was examined as

P.W.1 and 4 other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5. Exs.A1 to A21

were marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was

examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

4. The learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the evidence on

record, concluded that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her

part of contract. Though the trial Court has also found that the suit cannot be http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

said to be barred by limitation, however, the trial Court found that the plaintiff

ought to have taken steps within a reasonable time and therefore, the suit for

specific performance filed after 23 years cannot be decreed. On the said

conclusion, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff

preferred an appeal in A.S.No.26 of 2019. The appellate Court upon

reconsideration of the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the

trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with

this second appeal.

5. I have heard Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant.

6. Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, is in an unenviable position, as the damage done is so humongous

that it cannot be rectified. The two documents of the year 1990, which have

been produced, are neither here nor there. The contents of the documents

show that the documents are written as if they are sale deeds. Unfortunately,

the plaintiff has treated the said documents as sale agreements and sued for

specific performance. The documents recite that the plaintiff has been put in

possession of the property and she would be entitled for mutation of revenue

records also. But, the documents were neither registered nor stamped http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

sufficiently. The case of the plaintiff is also not consistent. The defendants

have rightly pleaded that the plaintiff cannot sue for specific performance

based on those instruments that too after a long gap of 23 years. The Courts

below have analyzed the evidence on record and arrived at a factual finding to

the effect that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the

contract and that she is not entitled to specific performance. Both the Courts

have appreciated the contents of the documents and have come to the

conclusion that both the instruments are only agreements and not sale deeds.

Even if they are to be treated as sale deeds, they could not have been received

as evidence for want of registration as well as sufficient stamp duty.

7. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant is

unable to pick holes in the factual findings rendered by the Courts below. I am

unable to see any question of law much less substantial question of law arising

for consideration in this appeal. The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed

without being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

10.03.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ogy http://www.judis.nic.in

S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

ogy

To

1. The Sub Court, Manamadurai.

2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

S.A.(MD)No.117 of 2021

10.03.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in