Madras High Court
K.Perumal Samy Rishi vs A.N.Lakshmipathy on 25 January, 2023
A.S.No.838 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
A.S.No.838 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
K.Perumal Samy Rishi, @ E.V.Perumal Sami Reddy ...Appellant/ Plaintiff
-Vs-
1.A.N.Lakshmipathy
2.A.N.Bala Murugan
3.A.N.Gnanasekaran
4.A.N.Chandrasekaran
5.A.N.Loganayaki
6.A.N.Somasundaram
7.A.N.Suresh Kumar
8.A.N.Ponnurangam
9.Ponnammal @ Vanathy Kannan
10.Saravana Foundation Ltd.,
No.15 New Giri Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
11.R.K.P.Builders and Promoters,
Rep. by its Sole Proprietor R.Palani,
Plot No. 1510, T.S.Krishna Nagar,
Mugappiar East,
Chennai – 600 037. ...Respondents/Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
A.S.No.838 of 2012
Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of
C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012 made in O.S.No.79
of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.I, Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan
Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr.R.Murali
For R1 to R9 : No appearance
For R10 : Mr.K.V.Babu
for Mrs.K.R.B.Dhaaranee
For R11 : Mr.Ralph V.Manohar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee, is the
appellant in the above appeal.
2.The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2006 for specific
performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 10.01.2005 executed by defendants
1 to 9, along with one Chokkubai, who is the wife of late Sri.A.S.Nagarathnam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
and mother of defendants 1 to 7.
3.The suit property was originally owned by two brothers, namely,
Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam and Mr.A.S.Ponnurangam. Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam died,
leaving behind his wife Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal and his children, i.e. defendants
1 to 7. It is the case of plaintiff, that Thiru.A.S.Ponnurangam, the 8 th defendant
representing the family agreed to sell the suit properties at the rate of
Rs.37,000/- per cent and received a sum of Rs.1 lakh as advance. 8 th defendant
was appointed as Power of Attorney Agent of defendants 1 to 7, 9th defendant
and mother of defendants 1 to 7 by a registered Power of Attorney Deed dated
15.11.2004. Later Mr.A.S.Ponnurangam for himself and on behalf of
defendants 1 to 7 and 9 and mother of defendants 1 to 7 executed a Sale
Agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 10.01.2005. As per the Sale Agreement,
the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.38,000/- per cent and the total sale
consideration for an extent of 2 acres and 20 cents (suit property) was arrived at
Rs.83,60,000/-. On the date of the Agreement, the 8 th defendant received a sum
of Rs.17,00,000/- as advance including the sum of Rs.1 lakh received as
advance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
4.It is the case of plaintiff that he agreed to purchase the suit property in
order to develop the land as a layout and sell the suit property as house site
plots. It is stated that the plaintiff who was doing real estate business, obtained
a Power of Attorney Deed dated 19.01.2005 under Ex.A4 from defendants 1 to
9 and one Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal, the wife of Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam and
mother of defendants 1 to 7. As per the Agreement, the plaintiff was supposed
to complete the sale by the end of April, 2005. However, it is admitted that
Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal died on 26.04.2005. Thereafter, on 28.04.2005, the
plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the 4th defendant, who is the son of
Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal by way of further advance amount. Admittedly the
plaintiff failed to pay the balance consideration on or before 30.04.2005. It is
stated by the plaintiff that the defendants failed to provide the legal heirship
certificate and other documents so as to enable the plaintiff to proceed with the
development of the land as a layout as it was conceived at the time of the
Agreement. The 8th defendant issued a notice under Ex.A5 dated 23.06.2005,
complaining that the plaintiff who had agreed to complete the transaction on or
before 30.04.2005 failed to pay the balance. By this notice, the plaintiff was
called upon to complete the transaction on or before 30.06.2005 by paying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
entire balance amount and arrange for registration of Sale Deed so as to
complete the sale transaction failing which he will be at liberty to cancel the
Agreement. Thereafter, on 28.06.2005, the plaintiff issued a reply notice to the
8th defendant under Ex.A6, asking for verification of documents, Power of
Attorney and other documents relating to the title in order to obtain sanction
from CMDA. Later it is admitted that defendants 1 to 9 executed a Sale Deed
on 21.07.2006 in favour of defendants 10 and 11. Thereafter on 22.08.2006,
the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance, alleging that defendants 10
and 11 are not bona fide purchasers.
5.The suit was resisted by the defendants pointing out that the plaintiff
was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the
balance of sale consideration on or before 30.04.2005 as agreed under the Suit
Agreement Ex.A3. Though execution of the Suit Agreement under Ex.A3 dated
10.01.2005 is admitted, the defendants raised several grounds. One of the main
grounds raised in the written statement is that the plaintiff was never ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract and hence not entitled to the equitable
relief for specific performance. It is specifically stated in the written statement
that after the death of Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal on 29.04.2005, as required by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
the plaintiff, the defendants obtained a death certificate and legal heirship
certificate for verification of documents and after receiving the records, the
plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance as agreed. Though the plaintiff
was permitted to develop the suit property, he relied on the terms of the
Agreement and contended before the Trial Court that possession was handed
over to him pursuant to the Agreement. The plaintiff also pleaded protection
under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. However, in the written
statement a specific stand was taken disputing the averments and the
defendants contended that physical possession was never handed over to the
plaintiff.
6.The Trial Court after recording the pleadings, framed the following
issues :
i. Whether the time is the essence of contract ?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is ready to perform his contract ?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property ?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as
prayed for the plaint ?
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction to
restraining the defendants and their men from interfering in any
manner with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
property ?
vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cost ?
vii.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?
7.Before the Trial Court, the Power of Attorney of plaintiff was examined
as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of plaintiff. The 8 th defendant
was examined as D.W.1., and the proprietor of the 11th defendant was examined
as D.W.2. Exs.B1 to B26 were marked on the side of defendants.
8.The Trial Court held that time is not the essence of the contract because
the defendants have come forward to extend the time till 30.06.2005. However,
the Trial Court found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract in terms of the Agreement under Ex.A3. A specific issue
was framed, whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The Trial
Court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as per the
Agreement, to enable the plaintiff to convert the suit property into house site
plots. However, the plaintiff was granted specific performance in respect of an
extent of 47.37 cents of the total suit property, taking into account the money
paid by the plaintiff under Suit Agreement Ex.A3. Challenging the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit in respect of remaining extent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
of the suit property the above appeal is preferred.
9.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously
argued that the Trial Court having held that time is not the essence of the
contract, erroneously found that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract, as the plaintiff did not pay the balance on or before
30.04.2005 as per the Sale Agreement under Ex.A3. The learned senior counsel
then pointed out that the appellant paid a substantial amount of Rs.18,00,000/-
as advance and that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract by paying the balance of the sale consideration. Since the Agreement
enabled the plaintiff to develop the land simultaneously, the learned senior
counsel pointed out that the delay was caused by the death of Tmt.Chokkubai
Ammal. Pointing out that the plaintiff could not move forward towards land
development as agreed and contemplated at the time of entering into a Sale
Agreement under Ex.A3 it is submitted that the plaintiff was handicapped in
view of the death of one of the vendors. The learned senior counsel also pointed
out that the Sale Agreement itself was entered into between the parties through
the Power of Attorney Deed. It is stated that appellant/plaintiff was unable to
complete the project due to the death of Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal, the wife of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam. The learned senior counsel then submitted that since the
plaintiff has purchased the suit property, he is entitled to ask for the legal
heirship certificate, death certificate and other documents. The learned senior
counsel further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have granted a decree for
specific performance in respect of the entire suit property. The learned senior
counsel pointed out that the defendants had not filed any cross appeal as against
the finding of the Trial Court and therefore, on the finding of the Trial Court,
the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent who
is the subsequent purchaser, submitted that the Trial Court has rightly held that
the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per
the Sale Agreement under Ex.A3. The learned counsel referred to the pleadings
and evidence adduced on either side to sustain the finding of the Trial Court
holding that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract. Though the Trial Court found that time is not the essence of the
contract, it is submitted that the reasoning of the Trial Court on the issue is not
proper, despite no cross appeal is filed by the defendants as against that portion
of the decree which was on the basis that time is not the essence of the contract.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
Since, the Trial Court has given a finding that the plaintiff is not ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract and declined to grant relief in respect
of the entire suit property as per the agreement under Ex.A3, learned counsel
submitted that it is open to them to urge all the points to sustain the judgment.
11.Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on
either side and the specific pleadings, evidence and issues framed by Trial
Court, this Court finds that the following points are to be determined in this
Appeal:-
(a) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract in terms of the Sale Agreement under Ex.A3 dated 10.01.2005
(b) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the discretionary relief for specific
performance?
Points (a) and (b)
12.It is to be noted that the Agreement of Sale under Ex.A3, specifies the
time before which the entire sale consideration should be paid. Pursuant to Sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
Agreement under Ex.A3, the plaintiff agreed to pay the entire balance on or
before 30.04.2005 under clause (4) of the Sale Agreement. It is relevant to
extract clauses (4), (6) and (8):-
4/ nkw;go epy';fspd; fpiuag;gj;jpu';fis
Kjy; ghu;l;o ,itfSf;Fz;lhd KG
fpiuaj;ij KGtJkhf ,uz;lhk; ghu;l;oapd;
gtu; Vb$z;olk; rhl;rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy;
bfhLf;ft[k; fpiuag;gj;jpu';fis 2005k; Mz;L
Vg;uy; khjk; 30 e;njjpf;Fs; Koj;Jf;bfhs;s
ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; gj;jpug;gjpt[ff
; hd fpiuaj;
bjhifia rhu;gjpthsu; mYtyfj;jpy; t';fp
ouhg;l; Mf bfhLf;f ntz;Lk;/
gj;jpug;gjpt[ff
; hd epykjpg;g[ Fwpj;J brz;l;
fzf;fpy; gjpt[ bra;tJ mtu;fspd;
brytpnyna gj;jpuk; fpiuak;. gj;jpug;gjpt[
kw;Wk; ,ju bryt[fs; Kjy; ghu;l;oapd;
bghWg;ghFk;/
6/nkYk; 2tJ ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; tpf;fpiua
bjhifia bgw;Wf;bfhz;L. 1tJ ghu;l;o-
ghu;l;ofs;; nfhUk; egu;fSf;nfh my;yJ 1tJ
ghu;l;oapd;-ghu;l;ofspd; bgaupnyh fpiuak;
bra;J bfhLf;f 2tJ ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs;
rk;kjpf;fpwhu;fs;/ jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 1tJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; rl;lg;go epyj;Jf;fhd
bjhifia muR t';fpapy; brYj;jp epyj;ij
fpiuak; bra;J bfhs;s chpik cz;L/ 1tJ
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; epyj;Jf;fhd bjhifia
bfhLf;fhky; fhyk; flj;jpdhy; rl;lg;goahd
eltof;if vLf;f 2tJ ghu;l;of;F-ghu;l;ofSf;F
cupik cz;L/
8/fPnH bc&l;a[{ypy; fz;l epyj;ij 1tJ
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; jd; brhe;j brytpy; tPlL
;
kidfshf gpupt[ bra;J. jh';fs; bgau;
itf;ft[k;. tpsk;guk; bra;at[k;. kidapd;
tpw;gid bjhifapid epu;zapf;ft[k;. nkYk;
mt;thW ,ayhky; nghdhy; rpwpa ghf';fshf
tpw;gid bjhifapid epu;zapf;ft[k;. Kd;
gzj; bjhifapid bgwt[k;. mt;thW bgw;w
bjhiffSf;F urPJfs; tH';ft[k;. my;yJ
mf;fpupbkz;l; bfhLf;ft[k;. 1tJ ghu;l;of;F-
ghu;l;ofSf;F 2tJ ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; cupik
mspj;J xg;g[jy; mspf;fpwhu;fs;/ nky;
fz;litfSf;F xg;g[jy; mspj;jhYk;. 1tJ
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; 2tJ ghu;l;oaplk;-ghu;l;ofsplk;
bra;J bfhz;l mf;fpupbkz;oy; fz;Ls;s
bkhj;j fpiua bjhifapy; 2tJ ghu;l;o-
ghu;l;ofSf;F nruntz;oa gzj;ij 1tJ
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs;. 2tJ ghu;l;of;F-ghu;l;ofSf;F
bfhLj;Jtpl;L. bfhLj;j gzj;jpw;F jFe;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
epyj;ij fpiuankh. gtu; Mg; ml;lhu;dpnah
bgw 1tJ ghu;l;of;F-ghu;l;ofSf;F tH';f 2tJ
ghu;l;o-ghu;l;ofs; rk;kjpf;fpwhu;fs;/
As per the Sale Agreement under Ex.A3, the suit property has an extent of 2
acres and 20 cents and is located in a prime locality in Ambattur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District. The plaintiff obtained a general Power of Attorney Deed
under Ex.A4 dated 19.01.2005. As per the general Power of Attorney Deed, the
plaintiff was authorised to develop the land as a layout and he had full authority
from the defendants' not only to develop the land but also to enter into
Agreement and receive advance etc., in respect of parcels of land or house site
plots. The terms of the Sale Agreement under Ex.A3 refers to the payment of
the balance on or before 30.04.2005 and the payment of the balance is not
subject to any other clauses in the Agreement. From the sequence of
performance as agreed under Ex.A3, it is seen that the parties contemplated the
sale of plots well before the last date specified in the Agreement for payment of
balance. The terms of Agreement cannot be construed to mean that the payment
of balance is subject to the plaintiff's actual development of land as the
Agreement specifically refers to completion of sale by 30.04.2005. Since the
defendants have issued a notice under Ex.A5 dated 23.06.2005 calling upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
plaintiff to complete the transaction on or before 30.06.2005, the Trial Court
held that time is not the essence of the contract. However, the notice under
Ex.A5 refers to the request of plaintiff to extend time till 15.06.2005. It was
then the plaintiff was called upon to pay balance before 30.06.2005. Merely
because an extension was given at the request of plaintiff, the stipulation
regarding time cannot be ignored, especially when the defendants warned that
the Agreement would be cancelled if not performed within the extended time.
Therefore, it cannot be disputed that time was made the essence of the contract,
as evidenced by the subsequent notice issued by the defendants on 23.06.2005.
Since the plaintiff was required to pay the balance sale consideration of
Rs.65,60,000/- on or before 30.04.2005 as per agreement and it is admitted that
the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration instead came with a
reply notice under Ex.A6 dated 28.06.2005. In the reply notice, the plaintiff
refers to another Agreement and has expressed in unambiguous terms that they
are not willing. The relevant portion of reply notice is extracted below:
As per the token advance agreement we had agreed
to purchase 3.39 acres on the assurance and promise that
you would bring all the owners into completing the
transaction for the said total extent. Now we strangely
find from your letter that you have split up the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
transaction, which was not at all the intention on either
side. Therefore, we wish to state that we are interested,
right from the beginning, only to complete the sale for the
entire extent of 3.39 acres agreed upon all at the same
time. But nevertheless, we are not disinclined to complete
the sale in relation to each of the sale agreement
separately provided you furnish a copy of the vital
document, namely, copy of judgment in O.S.No.10/88,
which is not forthcoming from your side. It is solely for
the above reason we are prevented from proceeding
further and therefore as undertaken by you, you are
requested to take immediate steps at least now to place
the said document in our hands for obtaining legal
opinion and further completion of the transaction. On our
side we are always ready and willing to pay the balance
sale consideration at any time, however, subject to title
free from any defect.
We greatly regret to find from your letter that you
have made false allegation as if we have been delaying
the completion of the sale. You cannot reasonably expect
us to proceed with the transaction in a blindfolded
manner even though we are possessed of sufficient funds
to complete the sale at any time. You know very well that
only the buyer has to take all precautions regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
verification of title as advised by our lawyer. Moreover
one of the party Chokubai had died and as such the
Power of Attorney dated 19.01.2005 has become defective
and our request in that regard for a fresh Power of
Attorney made to you several times is not being complied
with for reasons best known to you. Even you have
obtained name transfer in the revenue records after the
death of Chokubai. The production of all documents
relating to title is mandatory for obtaining sanction from
CMDA which fact has also been duly informed to you.
Please note that with all the lapses on your side,
your threat to cancelling the sale agreement for sale is
not proper and is uncalled for. Unless you extend your
cooperation in providing us with all the documents
mentioned above, we would not be in a position to obtain
early sanction for lay out and especially when the idea
behind our purchase was for real estate purposes.
Therefore we request you to hand over the copy of
the judgment in O.S.No.169/86, 10/88 revenue records
such as patta, chitta, adangal transferred in the name of
all the legal heirs of Chokubai immediately so as to
enable us to complete the sale at the earliest. Further you
are also informed that in exercise of the Power of
Attorney executed in our favour and as per the terms
contained in the said power we have entered into a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
further registered agreement with a third party who is
insisting for the requisite documents and records
essential for obtaining sanction for promoting the
property. Therefore any misadventurous or speculative
act of cancellation of the agreement or otherwise would
only complicate the matter.”
The plaintiff in the reply comes forward with another Agreement and require the
defendants to produce documents of title, judgments, revenue records etc.,
indicating that they are not ready to perform their part of agreement under
Ex.A3. Contrary to the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff set up another
Agreement with different terms and expressed his willingness subject to
production of records.
13.This Court is unable to find any error in the finding of the Trial Court
that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is
seen that the plaintiff stated in the reply notice that there was a dispute with
regard to the title of the suit property, which is the subject matter of the
Agreement and the defendants have not come forward to clear the doubt.
However, the plaintiff not only asked for details of certain civil proceedings and
copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10 of 1998 but also pointed out that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
the plaintiff was unable to verify the title of the suit property as adviced by his
lawyer. Further pointing out that the death of one of the parties, namely,
Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal who died on 29.04.2005, the plaintiff came forward
with the case that the title of defendants became defective unless fresh Power of
Attorney is executed and the revenue records are altered. Therefore, the plaintiff
expressed in unequivocal person that he cannot do anything further without the
title being verified by the production of necessary documents. Though the
plaintiff has taken such a stand, unfortunately, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant is unable to explain the conduct of the plaintiff in
the reply notice.
14.It is admitted that Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal, who is none other than the
wife of Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam, one of the two brothers, along with her children
succeeded to one half share in the suit property. Since Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam
died, all the legal heirs namely the wife and children of Mr.A.S.Nagarathnam
were parties to the Sale Agreement. Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal died leaving behind
her own children who are also parties to the Sale Agreement. On account of the
death of Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal, her right has devolved on her children who are
defendants 1 to 7. In such circumstances, it is seen that the suit Agreement is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
not affected by the death of Tmt.Chokkubai Ammal and the plaintiff was in a
position to proceed further with the development without any further document.
15.Strangely even in the reply notice to the defendants, the plaintiff has
not refused the specific averment or allegation in the notice which reads as
follows:
“Originally you have agreed to complete the entire
transaction positively before 30.04.2005 later you wanted
to extend the time by 15.06.2005 for various reasons.
Now you are very silent in executing the registered Sale
Deeds by paying the balance sale consideration namely
Rs.65,60,000/- You are aware for the above said purpose
I met you along with the legal heirs and co-owners of the
property on many occasions at your office for which
you're not finding a proper or reasonable assurance or
reply except indicating that you are having financial
difficulty to complete the transaction”
When a specific allegation is made that the 8th defendant came along with his
legal heir and other co-owners of the property on many occasions to the office of
the plaintiff and were ready to complete the transaction, the plaintiff gave no
explanation in his reply notice under Ex.A6 dated 28.06.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
16.The learned senior counsel is unable to demonstrate before this Court
to show how the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness. From the
peculiar stand taken by the plaintiff in the reply notice under Ex.A6 and the
conduct of the appellant/plaintiff, the Trial Court had no option but to hold that
the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This
Court has no reason to disregard the finding of the Trial Court. The plaintiff
having taken a stand in the reply notice, contrary to the terms of the Agreement
filed the suit for specific performance with unclean hands and hence he is not
entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. It is fortunate for the
plaintiff to get a decree at least for the money which he had paid as an advance
under the Sale Agreement Ex.A3. It is not in dispute that the Trial Court has
granted a decree for specific performance in respect of a portion of the suit
property corresponding to the value which the plaintiff had paid under Ex.A3.
Even thought he plaintiff does not deserve a decree without showing his
readiness and willingness, this Court cannot modify the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court as there is no cross appeal, or independent appeal filed by the
defendants as against the decree. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is
confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
17.In the result, the appeal suit stands dismissed with costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.
[SSSRJ] [AANJ]
25.01.2023
cda
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.838 of 2012
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
cda
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee.
2.Saravana Foundation Ltd.,
No.15 New Giri Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
3.R.Palani,
Sole Proprietor,
R.K.P.Builders and Promoters,
Plot No. 1510, T.S.Krishna Nagar,
Mugappiar East,
Chennai – 600 037.
4.The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
A.S.No.838 of 2012
25.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
