Madras High Court
Chinnammal (Died) vs Rajammal on 27 April, 2022
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
S.A(MD)No.218 of 2017
and
CMP(MD) No.4399 of 2017
Chinnammal (died)
Murugesan ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Rajammal
2.Loganathan ... Respondents
(Cause title accepted vide Court order dated 22.09.2016
made in CMP(MD) No.7279 of 2016)
Prayer :- The second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.177 of
2006 dated 24.08.2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirappalli in confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.386 of
1998 dated 13.12.2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri.
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.K.Kovindarajan
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree
passed in A.S.No.177 of 2006 dated 24.08.2010 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Jud ge, Tiruchirappalli in confirming the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.386 of 1998 dated 13.12.2005 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Musiri.
2.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was originally
owned by the deceased first defendant - Ramasamy and he had entered
into a sale agreement with one Chellappan, who is the husband of the
first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. In pursuance of the sale
agreement, Chellappan took possession of the property and was in
enjoyment. The said Chellappan died on 18.11.1997. The plaintiffs are
the legal heirs of the deceased Chellappan. According to the plaintiffs,
the said Ramasamy sold the property to Chellappan for a sum of
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
Rs.2,700/- in the year 1968. The Chellappan was in possession of the
property. There was a conflict arose between the Chellappan and
Ramasamy in the year 1991. So, by virtue of Ex.A1, dated 30.01.1991
both Chellappan and the Ramasamy mutually agreed that the Chellappan
would hand over the property to the first defendant. In turn, the said
Ramasamy to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- within a period 90 days. In the
event, if there is a failure to repay the same, the Ramasamy has to return
the suit property to the said Chellappan. After the death of the
Chellappan, the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the said
Ramasamy, refused to return the property to the plaintiffs. Therefore,
legal notices were issued on two occasions i.e., 27.11.1995 and
11.11.1998. Since there was no reply from the said Ramasamy, the
present suit came to be filed, by the legal heirs of the said Chellappan.
3.The defendants filed a written statement stating that there was
no agreement entered into between the deceased Chellappan and
Ramasamy and they denied the execution of Ex.A1. The deceased
Chellappan had not purchased the suit property under an oral sale in the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
year 1968 for a sum of Rs.2,700/- and the possession was not at all
handed over to him. Further Ex.A1 cannot be construed as a sale
agreement. Therefore, there is no merit in the suit and the suit is liable to
be dismissed.
4.Before the trial Court, during trial, on the side of the plaintiffs,
one witness was examined as P.W1 and eleven documents were marked
as Ex.A1 to A11. On the side of the defendants, one witness was
examined as DW1 and ten documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10.
4.The trial Court, after considering the submissions made by both
the parties, came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 is not a sale agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of specific
performance. Furthermore, the suit is also dismissed on the ground of
limitation. Admittedly, the defendants are in possession of the property.
Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that they have supposed
to have filed the present suit within three years, but the suit came to be
filed on 14.11.1998. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree, the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
appellants herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.177 of 2006 before the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellate Court also
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation as
well as Ex.A1 is not at all a sale agreement and it cannot be construed as
a sale agreement. Aggrieved over the said judgment and decree, the
second appeal has been filed suggesting the following substantial
question of law:-
(i) Is it correct that the Courts below dismissed the
suit and discharge the liability of the respondents to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per
oral agreement between the parties by mere execution of
Ex.A1?
(ii) Is it correct the Courts below dismissed the
suit in entirety on the misconception of the facts that the
plaintiffs claimed the specific performance of contract
under Ex.A1 but not under oral agreement?
(iii) Is it correct that the Courts below dismissed
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
the suit on the ground of limitation, when the time is not
essences of the contract between the parties?
(iv) Is it correct that the Courts below had
dismissed the suit on the ground that the revenue records
not mutated in name of plaintiff after delivery of physical
possession without transfer of title by the defendant?
(v) Whether the Courts below are right in not
considering Art.54(2) of Limitation Act?
6.The contention of the appellants is that in the year 1968, the oral
sale contract was made between deceased first defendant and
Chellappan. The said Chellappan paid a sum of Rs.2,700/- as sale
consideration. But the sale agreement is not registered and no sale deed
was executed. When there was a conflict between the deceased first
defendant and the Chellappan in the year 1991, Ex.A1 was executed.
According to the plaintiffs, it is a sale agreement. A perusal of the said
document would make it clear that the Chellappan had agreed to hand
over the property to the deceased first defendant. In turn, first defendant
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
has to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- within a period of 90 days. If he failed to
pay a sum of Rs.2,700/-, he has to return the property to the Chellappan.
Therefore, the cause of action arose immediately on the expiry of 90
days from the date of execution of Ex.A1. In the present case, the suit
was filed on 14.11.1998. Therefore, the Courts below had rightly
dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The appellants supposed
to have filed the present suit within a period of three years from the date
of expiry of 90 days and admittedly, no suit was filed. Therefore, the
dismissal of the suit by both the Court below on the ground of limitation
is right and I do not find any infirmity on that aspect.
7.With regard to the relief of specific performance, the
appellant/plaintiff heavily relied upon Ex.A1 and contended that it was a
sale agreement between the parties. A perusal of the content of the sale
agreement, it would appear that the first defendant has to pay a sum of
Rs.2,700/- within a period of 90 days from the date of agreement. In the
event of failure, the first defendant has to return the property to
Chellappan. First of all, Ex.A1 has been disputed by the defendants,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
even assuming it was legally executed. At any cost, it cannot be
construed as a sale agreement, but it was an understanding between the
parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,700/-, that too, the same was not proved in
the manner known to law. The Court below also came to a conclusion
that Ex.A1 is not at all a sale agreement and also not proved in the
manner known to law. Therefore, the suit was dismissed by both the
Court below. I am also concurred with the finding of both the Court
below and I find no merits to admit the second appeal on the substantial
questions of law as suggested by the appellant. Hence, the same is liable
to be dismissed.
8.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed by confirming the
concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
cp
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The District Munsif Court, Musiri.
3.The Record Clerk,
Vernacular Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.218 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
cp
S.A(MD)No.218 of 2017
Dated: 27.04.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
