Madras High Court
Sumathi vs Akilandam @ Kalaivani on 24 November, 2023
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.No.843 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.843 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.26724 of 2023
Ramdoss (Died)
1. Sumathi
2. Sakthi
3. Saraswathi
4. Selvakumar
5. Asothai ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Akilandam @ Kalaivani
2. Devi @ Amaladevi
3. Arul Prakash
4. P.Manimekalai
5. Jothilakshmi
6. C.T.Natarajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 in A.S.No.24 of 2013 passed by
the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, reversing
the judgment and decree of O.S.No.160 of 2010 dated 28.02.2013 passed
by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
For appellants : Mrs.P.Veena Suresh
Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowhtam
For respondents : No appearance
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.843 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the
dismissal of his suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of
sale or in the alternative for refund of the advance amount.
2. The facts of the case are briefly set out hereinbelow and
for the ease of understanding, the parties are referred to in the same
ranking as before the Trial Court.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
2.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first item of the suit
property was purchased by one Raju Pathar, father-in-law of the first
defendant, under two registered sale deeds dated 12.06.1980 and
19.04.1984 respectively. As regards the second item of the suit
property, it is the case of the plaintiff that one Ganapathy Chettiar had
sold the same to one Vaithianathasamy under a sale deed dated
07.05.1990. Vaithianathasamy, in turn, sold the second item of the
property to one Gunasekaran, husband of the first defendant, under a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sale deed dated 25.08.1992.
2.2. The plaintiff would further submit that under the
agreement of sale dated 03.11.1997, Gunasekaran had undertaken to
sell the second item of the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale
consideration of a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
and the time for performing the agreement was scheduled as one year.
Since the sale deed did not go through, another agreement was entered
into on 02.11.1998 and once again, the time schedule was fixed as one
year. It appears that even this agreement did not go through and third
agreement of sale was entered into on 03.11.1999 and the time
schedule was fixed as two years. However, the second item of the
property was not sold within the stipulated time.
2.3. Thereafter, Gunasekaran agreed to sell the first item of the
suit property. However, there was a mortgage deed dated 08.11.1983
subsisting in respect of the first item of the suit property and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff requested him to first discharge the mortgage deed.
Accordingly, on 23.10.2001, the mortgage deed was discharged and
Gunasekaran had obtained the discharge receipt.
2.4. Thereafter, under an agreement of sale dated 05.11.2001,
Gunasekaran, his mother, who is the second defendant herein and his
minor children represented by the second defendant as their guardian,
had agreed to sell the first and second item of the suit property for a
total sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs and Ten
Thousand only). On the day of execution of the agreement of sale, a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was paid as advance
by the plaintiff and three years period was fixed for paying the balance
of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).
2.5. Gunasekaran failed to execute the sale deed and on
14.04.2003, he had passed away. Therefore, the plaintiff had
approached the legal heirs of the Gunasekaran to proceed with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
execution of the sale deed which was not complied with. This
constrained the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 04.05.2003 which
did not evoke the desired result. Thereafter, the plaintiff had issued
yet another notice dated 20.10.2004. Meanwhile, he came to learn that
the defendants had mortgaged the first item of the property to the fifth
defendant for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-(Rupees One lakh Sixty Five
Thousand only) and had executed a mortgage deed dated 23.05.2002.
2.6. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Raju Pathar had
executed a will in favour of his son Gunasekaran. Therefore, this suit
in O.S.No.160 of 2010 was filed on the file of the I Additional
Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, for the relief stated supra.
DEFENDANT'S CASE:
2.7. A written statement was filed by the first defendant and
the same was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4. They had contended
that the plaintiff is not known to them. The plaintiff is the father-in-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
law of one Manickam, who is a close friend of the first defendant's
deceased husband Gunasekaran.
2.8. The defendants, in their written statement, had stated that
the names of the defendants had been wrongly given and it had to be
corrected. However, the plaintiff had not deemed it fit to amend the
names of the defendants. That apart, Gunasekaran had two other
daughters who had not been impleaded. Therefore, the defendants had
pleaded dismissal of the suit on account of non-joinder of necessary
parties.
2.9. The defendants had denied the contention of the plaintiff
that Raju Pathar had executed the will. On the contrary, it is their
specific case that Raju Pathar died intestate and his property would
devolve on all his legal representatives and the agreement of sale
executed only by Gunasekaran would not be binding upon on the other
defendants. They had sought for the dismissal of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TRIAL COURT:
3. The Trial Court, on considering the pleadings on either
side, had framed the following issues:
“ (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
equitable relief of specific performance as prayed for?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
alternative relief of refund of sale consideration?
(3) Whether the sale agreement dated
05.11.2001 is obtained by the plaintiff under threat and
gercicn is true?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
(5) To what relief?”
4. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and one
Chakaravarthy and one Karumpaiyiram as P.W.2 and P.W.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respectively, and marked Exs.A1 to A19. On the side of the
defendants, the first defendant had examined herself as D.W.1 and
marked Exs.B1 to B9.
5. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence, has
proceeded to decree the suit.
LOWER APPELLATE COURT:
6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants had filed
A.S.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions
Court, Cuddalore.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
7. The points for consideration framed by the Lower
Appellate Court are as follows:
“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
equitable relief of specific performance as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
alternative relief of refund of sale consideration?
(3) Whether the sale agreement dated
05.11.2001 is obtained by the plaintiff under threat and
coercion?
(4)Whether the judgment and decree passed by
the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore, in O.S.No.160/2010, dated 28.02.2013 is
liable to be set aside ?
(5)To what relief the appellants are entitled?”
8. The lower Appellate Court, on considering the evidence
and judicial precedents, held that from the conduct of the plaintiff,
particularly, the extension of the agreements of sale in respect of
second item of the suit property where the sale consideration was only
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Ex.A2 - agreement of
sale in respect of the both items of the property for which notice had
been issued only on 04.05.2003, expressing the plaintiff's intent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
execute the sale deed, clearly shows that the agreements were never
intended to be acted upon. They appear to have been executed it only
as a security and further, it clearly shows the lack of readiness and
willingness on the part of the plaintiff and declined to grant the relief
of specific performance.
9. The learned Judge went on to hold that the suit is one for
specific performance and the conduct of the plaintiff is not
satisfactory. The plaintiff is, therefore, not also entitled to the
alternative relief. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this
Court.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
who has made her submission for the admission.
DISCUSSION:
11. As rightly held by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff
who claims that he has entered into an agreement of sale to purchase
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the property, originally entered into an agreement for purchasing the
second item of the property for just a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) for which, the agreement was entered into on
03.11.1997 where the time for completing the agreement was fixed as
one year. Since the plaintiff was not able to complete the sale, a fresh
agreement of sale dated 02.11.1998, was claimed to be entered into
between the parties once again giving a time of one year to the
plaintiff to pay the balance and have the sale deed executed.
12. Thereafter, a third agreement dated 03.11.1999 was
entered into and the time for paying the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) was extended by 3 years. Subsequently, the
parties have entered into the agreement of sale on 05.11.2001 in
respect of both the items of the property. Once again, the total sale
consideration was shown as Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and
Ten Thousand only) and this agreement would read that the sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was paid as advance and once
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
again, the balance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) will be
paid within a period of three years.
13. Therefore, it is seen that from the year 1997 till 2001, the
plaintiff has not proceeded to have the sale deeds registered. The
agreement dated 05.11.2001 (Ex.A8) which covers both items of the
property would read that 99% of the sale consideration had been paid
and what remains was only a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) for which the time for performance was fixed as three
years. This clearly displays the fact that the agreement of sale was
never intended to be acted upon since any ordinary prudent man who
had entered into an agreement with an intention of purchasing the
property would immediately pay the balance sale consideration which
is a pathy sum and get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff had
however, not proceeded to do so.
14. Even in the case of the last agreement of sale, no notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was issued seeking specific performance of the agreement during the
lifetime of Gunasekaran. It was only after Gunasekaran passed away
on 14.04.2003, that the legal notice has been issued on 04.05.2003,
even thereafter, no proceedings were initiated and yet another notice
was issued on 20.10.2004 and ultimately, the suit came to be filed
only in the year 2004. Therefore, the plaintiff's conduct clearly
demonstrates his lack of readiness and willingness and the lower
Appellate Court has therefore, rightly reversed the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court.
In the result, this second appeal stands dismissed as it does not
involve any substantial question of law and judgment and decree of
the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, in
A.S.No.24 of 2013 is confirmed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.
stands closed. No costs.
24.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
ssa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The I Additional District Judge, Cuddalore.
2.The I Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
