Madras High Court
Nachimuthu (Died) vs Marimuthu on 1 March, 2024
S.A.No.444 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
S.A.No.444 of 2012
and MP.No.1 of 2012
1.Nachimuthu (Died)
2.Pappathi
3.Amsaveni
4.Mathesh ... Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased sole Appellant
viz.,Nachimuthu vide Court order
dated 15.11.2021 made in CMP.No.11930 to
11932 of 2018 in SA.No.444/2012 (TKRJ))
vs.
Marimuthu ...Respondents
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2011 passed in
A.S.No.49 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court, (FTC No.I),
Salem reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2008 passed in
1/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.444 of 2012
OS.No.25 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Mettur.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Sekar for
Mr.D.Shivakumaran
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit for specific performance is the appellant
herein. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 28.03.2011 passed in AS.No.49 of 2008 on the file of Additional
District Court, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, reversing the judgment and
decree dated 29.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.25 of 2006 on the file of Sub
Court, Mettur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their rankings before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The brief facts, which give rise to the second appeal, are as follows:
3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell the suit
property and he agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-,
pursuant to the agreement dated 16.11.2005. The plaintiff entered into a
sale agreement for purchasing the suit property for a total sale
consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and on that date itself, the plaintiff has paid
an advance of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was further agreed that the defendant shall
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consideration of Rs.20,000/- within seven months from the date of
agreement.
4. According to the plaintiff, he approached the defendant on many
occasions and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed by
tendering the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Since the
defendant did not show any interest, finally on 15.05.2006 the plaintiff
met the defendant in person and requested to perform his part of the
contract. Since it did not materialize, the plaintiff sent legal notice on
16.11.2005 calling upon the defendant to come to the Sub Registrar Office
on 26.11.2005 to execute the sale deed, but the defendant have evaded the
service of notice. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and
willing to perform his part of contract, since the defendant evaded, he has
come with the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated
16.11.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement
disputing the sale agreement in Ex.A.1. According to the defendant, he
borrowed a loan from M/s.Mettur, M/s.Mettur Chollan Finance &
Investments, Mettur, M/s.Erode Cheran Corporation and Mettur Pandiyan
Finance and Investments, Mettur and Seran Finance and Investments,
Mettur. On 04.09.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
to purchase a tata vehicle from the above said financiers, for which, the
financiers obtained unfilled signed cheques from the defendant along with
signed unfilled 20 Rupees stamp papers, two unfilled signed conquer
sheets and four unfilled signed pro notes, all for security purposes.
According to the defendant, the plaintiff's son Madesh and plaintiff's wife
Pappathi are partners in Mettur Seran Finance and in Erode Seran
Corporation Finance. The defendant had also borrowed a sum of
Rs.4,50,000/- for purchasing a rig vehicle from Erode Seran Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Finance, during the month of June 2004.
6. According to the defendant, he had closed the loan account.
However, while availing the loan, the financiers obtained the signatures
from the defendant on two unfilled 20 rupees stamp papers, four unwritten
green concur sheets and four unfilled stamped pronotes. Even after the
completion of the loan amount, these documents were not returned.
Further, according to the defendant, one Appu @ Perumal obtained loan
from the finance and the defendant was compelled to give unfilled
documents as a security. Even after settling all these accounts, the
finances retained those documents and set up the plaintiff and created the
sale agreement by utilising unfilled stamp papers and concur sheets.
Therefore, according to the defendant, the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 is not
true and genuine and it was never intended and executed by the parties for
the sale of the suit property. The defendant also averred that he issued the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lawyers notice on 19.07.2006 demanding the return of the documents and
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Evidence and Documents:
7. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined
himself as PW.1 and the attestor was examined as PW.2 and marked
Exs.A1 to A.4. On the side of the defendants, the defendant himself was
examined as DW.1 and also examined four other witnesses DW.2 to DW.5
and marked Exs.B.1 to B.36. The defendant signature is marked as
Ex.C.1 and Ex.X1 to X3 were marked through witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Findings of the Court below:
8. After appraising the evidences and documents, the Trial court
decreed the suit for specific performance. The Trial Court came to the
conclusion that the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 is true and genuine and
disbelieved the version of the defendant that he was not available in Tamil
Nadu during the time of execution of sale agreement in Ex.A1 and since
the signature in Ex.A.1 is not denied and major part of the sale
consideration was paid, the plaintiff had proved the sale agreement.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the
defendant filed appeal in AS.No.49 of 2008 on the file of Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Salem. The Lower Appellate Court
after reappraising the evidence allowed the appeal and set aside the decree
of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has
not established the passing of consideration and proved that agreement in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.A.1 is true. Aggrieved by the reversal judgement and decree of the
Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. This Court by order dated 25.04.2022, framed the following
substantial questions of law:
“a) Whether the lower Appellate Court has assigned cogent
reasons while differing with the findings of the Trial Court as
mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC?
b) Whether the findings of the lower Appellate Court can be
termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence?”
Submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant:
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the
parties have entered into the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 and on the same
day an advance of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid out of the total sale
consideration of Rs.2.70,000/- and a period of seven months was fixed for
the payment of balance sale consideration. The learned counsel further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contended that the defendant has admitted the signature in Ex.A.1 and also
the plaintiff has examined the attestor PW.2 and proved the due execution
of the sale agreement. The defendant for the purpose of evading the sale
transaction introduced a new story of loan availed by him and issuance of
unfilled stamp papers. He also has come forward with the defence that he
was not available in the state and was at Ranchi during the period of
execution of the sale agreement.
12. The learned counsel further contended that though the
defendant has filed the ticket in Ex.B.3 to show that he traveled from
Salem to Ranchi on 09.11.2005, through the cross examination of DW.3,
it has been clearly brought out that it cannot be confirmed that the
defendant himself traveled on the ticket. Further the unserved ticket in
Ex.B.5 has been filed for the travel on 21.11.2005, which cannot indicate
that the defendant had traveled on the ticket. Further, when DW.2 has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposed that after two days journey, the defendant reached Ranchi on
11.11.2005, the document filed by the plaintiff in Ex.B.4 shows that the
excess fare was charged only on 13.11.2005. Therefore, from this
document filed by the defendant, he was not able to establish that he was
not available in the state and he was available in the Ranchi and therefore,
his defence that during the period of execution of the sale agreement in
Ex.A.1, he was not available has not been proved.
13. The learned counsel further argued that only since cultivation
had been done in the suit property for the purpose of harvest, a time period
of seven months was given for completion on sale even after making the
payment of the major part of the sale consideration.
14. The learned counsel further contended that since the plaintiff
was a contractor, he had a stock of stamp papers and the same had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
used for execution of the sale agreement in Ex.A.1. Therefore, the Trial
Court by taking note of all these factors, accepted the sale agreement to be
true and genuine and decreed the suit. However, the Lower Appellate
Court had erroneously allowed the appeal by relying on the irrelevant
factors.. The Lower Appellate Court relied on the evidence of PW.2 who
had picked up stray sentences and come to the conclusion that the sale
agreement is not genuine. The learned counsel contended that the lower
appellate court has erroneously arrived at a finding which is perverse and
sought for allowing the appeal.
15.. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
(1) Tomaso Bruno and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 and
(2) Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 377.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
argued that the agreement in Ex.A.1 is not true and valid. The defendant
had availed loan from the finance company and had given the unfilled
signed stamp papers which have been used by the plaintiff in the present
suit. The learned counsel further contended that the defendant was not
available in Tamil Nadu from 09.11.2005 to 21.11.2005 and he had
travelled to Ranchi and the same has been established by filing the
documents in Ex.B.3 to B.5 and also Ex.X1. The defendant had also
examined the Chief Commercial Inspector of Southern Railway as DW.3,
who by filing Ex.X1 had confirmed that the defendant had travelled in the
confirmed ticket to Ranchi on 09.11.2005. As such there was no
possibility for the defendant to execute the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 on
16.11.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the
sale agreement had been executed on 16.11.2005 on stamp papers
purchased on 22.03.2004. The fact that the stamp papers purchased on
22.03.2004 had been used after nearly 1 ½ years to prepare the sale
agreement in Ex.A.1 fortifies the fact that it is not the true document.
Further, the plaintiff has claimed that he purchased the stamp papers 5 or
6 months before for his business. But whereas, from the evidence of
DW.4 it has been established that the stamp papers were actually sold to
one Ramasami of Erode. Further, the DW.5, stamp vendor has clearly
given evidence that he has sold the stamp papers to one Ramasamy on
22.03.2004 and he had not written the name of Nachimuthu, Kolathur, the
name of the plaintiff in Ex.A.1 agreement. As such, the claim of the
plaintiff that he purchased the stamp papers by signing in the relevant
register is not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. The learned counsel further contended that when admittedly
Ex.A.1 sale agreement is unregistered, PW.2 ithe attestor in the agreement,
deposed that the sale agreement was prepared in his presence and got
registered around 3.00 p.m. From the evidence of PW.2, the very
execution of the agreement becomes doubtful as passing of consideration
is not proved. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
there is no explanation or details given in the agreement as to why the
seven months time was granted for the payment of Rs.20,000/- when the
major sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on the same day.
19. The learned counsel further contended that the Lower Appellate
Court, by taking note of all these factors had rightly appreciated the
documents filed by the defendant and appreciating the oral evidence let in
by the parties, has arrived at the finding of fact that the sale agreement in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ex.A.1 is not true and genuine and has rightly set aside the decree of the
Trial Court.
20. The learned counsel further contended that when the finding of
the Lower Appellate Court is based on the available materials no
interference is required in the second appeal.
21. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
respondent relied on the following decisions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Rathinameenakshi vs. Somaraj reported in 2021 (3) CTC
72(Mad).
2. M.Jayaprakash Narayanan vs. Santhammal reported in 2018
(1) CTC 701 (Mad).
3. S.Palanivel and Another vs. P.Natesan reported in 2018 (1)
CTC 50 (Mad)
4. S.S.M. Soundappan and 5 others vs. K.G.Balakrishnan and
14 others reported in 1997 (II) CTC 385.
22. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
Analysis:
23. The plaintiff has come up with the suit for specific performance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
based on the sale agreement dated 16.11.2005 in Ex.A.1. As per the sale
agreement, the total sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- has been fixed and
an advance of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid on the same day and a time
period of seven months is fixed to pay the balance sale consideration of
Rs.20,000/- and complete the sale. It is the case of the plaintiff that he
was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and
complete the sale, but however the defendant evaded the completion of the
sale. Therefore, a legal notice dated 17.05.2006 in Ex.A.2 was issued and
since the defendant has not received the notice, the plaintiff filed the suit
on 12.06.2006 for specific performance.
24. The defendant has disputed Ex.A.1 sale agreement and has
stated that he availed loan from the finance and executed unfilled signed
stamp papers as security towards the loan transaction. The defendant also
claimed that he was not available in Tamil Nadu and had travelled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ranchi and was there from 09.11.2005 to 21.11.2005. Hence, there was
no possibility for him to have executed the sale agreement on 16.11.2005.
25. The defendant's further case is that he had availed loan from the
finance and he had given the unfilled stamp papers as security for the loan.
The defendant has filed documents in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2, which are the
registered partnership deeds to establish that the plaintiff 's son Mathesh
and plaintiff's wife Pappathi are the partners in Mettur Seran Finance and
Erode Seran Corporation. In fact, PW.1 in his evidence had admitted that
his son and wife are partners in Mettur Seran Finance and investments.
Further, PW.1 in his cross examination had also admitted that the
defendant might have borrowed the loan for a Tata car for a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/-, for which, the defendant could have given the blank
cheques, 20 Rupees stamp papers, 4 green sheets and pro notes to the
finance. When it is the specific case of the defendant that he had availed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
loan from the finance in which the plaintiff's wife and son are partners and
they also filed documents in Ex.B.1 and B.2 to establish the same and
prove his case that the unfilled stamp papers given by him had been
misused by the plaintiff for preparing the Ex.A.1 sale agreement and filed
the suit, the admission of the plaintiff himself proved that his son and wife
are partners and that the defendant would have borrowed the loan and
could have handed over the unfilled stamp papers to the finance supports
the very case of the defendant and makes the sale agreement in Ex.A.1
doubtful.
26. Further when admittedly the sale agreement is executed on
16.11.2005, the perusal of the agreement shows that it has been executed
on the stamp paper purchased on 22.03.2004. When in the normal
course, the stamp papers are purchased in the name of the plaintiff during
the time of execution of the deed, the fact that the stamp papers were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
purchased on 22.03.2004 by the plaintiff and were kept for more than a
period of 1 ½ years and the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 was executed on
16.11.2005 creates a doubt on the genuineness of the agreement and also
probabilizes the claim of the defendant that signed unfilled stamp papers
were given by him to the finance. Further, when the plaintiff claimed that
he was in a contract business as a contractor and he used to buy stamp
papers 5 to 6 months in advance and have a stock of the stamp papers and
particularly the stamp papers in Ex.A.1 was purchased by entering his
name in the register, the plaintiff had not filed any document to show that
he is a contractor or in a contract business which required him to purchase
and keep a stock of the stamp papers. Further, the defendant had
examined D.W.4 and D.W.5 and also marked Ex.X.1 which reveals that
the stamp paper bearing No.7212 in which Ex.A.1 sale agreement is
prepared was actually sold to one Ramasamy of Erode on 22.03.2004.
DW.5 the stamp vendor who had sold the stamp paper had also deposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that he had sold the stamp paper to Ramasamy of Erode on 22.03.2004
and had also denied that he had entered the name of the plaintiff
Nachimuthu in Ex.A.1 sale agreement.
27. From the evidences of DW.4 and DW.5, it is evident that the
claim of the plaintiff that he had purchased the stamp papers by affixing
the signature in the relevant register and he used the same for execution of
the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 is false. The stamp papers were sold to one
Ramasamy of Erode on 22.03.2004 and the sale agreement was executed
only on 16.11.2005 on the same stamp paper by entering the name of the
plaintiff and the stamp paper purchased 1 ½ years prior to the sale
agreement has been used later, creates serious suspicion and doubt in the
genuineness of the sale agreement in Ex.A.1.
28. The defendant had claimed that he was in Ranchi from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
09.11.2005 to 21.11.2005 and he had filed the confirmed travel ticket in
Ex.B.3 showing he travelled from Salem to Ranchi. He also examined
D.W.3, who had marked the document in Ex.X.1 to establish that he had
travelled in the confirmed ticket on 09.11.2005 to Ranchi. The argument
of the learned counsel for the appellant that during the cross examination
DW.3, stated that it cannot be confirmed whether the defendant traveled in
the train, does not make a big impact. The defendant by filing Ex.B.5, a
return ticket, even though unreserved, and also by examining DW.2, was
able to show that he has actually undertaken the business travel to Ranchi
during this period. He was not available at Mettur and therefore there was
no possibility of the defendant executing the sale agreement in Ex.A.1.
29. The plaintiff had examined the attestor of the sale agreement,
who is PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 becomes very crucial as the
defendant denies the execution of the sale agreement in Ex.A.1. PW.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deposed that he is a relative of the plaintiff and that on the day of
execution, the plaintiff purchased and brought the stamp paper. The
plaintiff along with Marimuthu and Pannerselvam went to Mettur. He was
not aware on the day on which the agreement was executed, but however
the sale agreement was registered at 3.00 p.m. He further deposed that the
plaintiff informed over phone at 2.30 p.m. From the Kolathur check post,
they all joined together and went to the office of Sivaraj, where the sale
agreement was typed. All of them signed with the same pen given by
Sivaraj and the sale agreement was registered at 3.00 p.m.
30. The perusal of the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 shows that it is not
signed with the same pen and it is also computer print out and not a typed
agreement as stated by him. Further, when PW.2 deposed that the
agreement was registered at 3.00 p.m, the fact that Ex.A.1 sale agreement
is un-registered which makes his evidence very doubtful and the passing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of consideration through Ex.A.1 has not been established. As such, the
evidence of PW.2, who is the attestor of the document is doubtful and not
reliable about the execution of the agreement in Ex.A.1.
31. When the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are analyzed, it could be
seen that serious doubt arises about the case of the plaintiff in respect of
execution of the agreement. In the suit for specific performance when the
plaintiff has come forward for the discretionary relief, the plaintiff is
bound to prove the sale agreement and that the consideration has been
passed. The plaintiff must be able to establish that the parties agreed and
intended to sell the suit properties and there was consensus -ad-idem
reached between them, based on which, the sale agreement was executed.
When the evidences of PW.1 and PW.2 and the evidences of DW.1 to
DW.5 are considered together, the plaintiff was not able to prove that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agreement in Ex.A.1 was intended by the parties and executed for the sale
of suit property.
32. Yet another factor is that when a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been
paid on the date of the sale agreement itself, there is no explanation
available in the agreement, as to why a period of seven months was fixed
to complete the sale for the balance payment of Rs.20,000 alone. Even
though, the learned counsel argued that since there was cultivation, the
time period was given to harvest, which is stated by PW.1 in his evidence,
but no reasons are available in the sale agreement in Ex.A.1 for fixing a
long period of seven months when almost the major part of the sale
consideration was paid on the date of sale agreement.
33. In the decision of this Hon'ble Court, in M.Jayaprakash
Narayanan vs. Santhammal and others (cited supra), it has been held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that merely because the attestor supported the case of the plaintiff in the
chief examination but from the cross examination his evidence becomes
totally unreliable and when the two elements namely free consent and
lawful consideration are absent in the document, such document cannot be
considered as executed for lawful consideration in the eye of law.
Relevant period of the judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
“12. Though PW2 has supported the plaintiff in
chief-examinaion, his cross-examination has clearly shows
that his evidence his totally reliable. In fact,he has stated in
his evidence that he has only attested the document alone,
whereas he also stood as witness in Ex.A.17. PW2 is
involved in Real Estate business. His evidence clearly
indicate that he is only an agent of PW.1. Therefore, merely
because PW1 & PW2 have stated above the execution of
document, taking into consideration the totality of the
circumstances as discussed above, we are constrained to
hold that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 does not satisfy the
conscious of this Court to believe their evidence to presume
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the execution of E.A1-agreement, particularly the alleged
consideration of Rs.40,00,000 on the date of agreement is
not been established at all. Therefore, mere signature of the
parties were established on the basis of some interested
witnesses of the parties, who wants to enforce the so called
contract, in respect o the huge property, the execution
cannot be inferred merely on the basis of such witnesses,
there must be evidence to show that Ex.A.1 is made out of
free consent of parties and there is a lawful consideration in
the above agreement. Only when the plaintiff established
that there was a consensus ad idem between the parties
and a valuable consideration, then the above contract can
be termed as a valid contract capable of enforcing before
the court of law. When the two elements namely, the free
consent and lawful consideration are absent in the
document. Such document cannot be considered for lawful
consideration in the eye of law. Therefore, we are
constrained to hold that Ex.A.1 is not established as a true
document.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34. Further in the judgment relied on by the respondent reported in
S.Palanivel and Another vs. P.Natesan and other (cited supra), it is
held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to take an unfair advantage merely
because it is lawful to grant specific relief, when the plaintiffs have failed
to establish that there was a valid sale agreement. The relevant portion of
the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“52. In the instant case, as stated supra, the
plaintiffs have established that there is valid sale
agreement. Further, the plaintiffs have also failed to
establish the passing of the sale consideration of 20 lakhs
by producing the income-tax returns and bank accounts
statements. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of specific
performance. In this regard, a reference could be placed
in another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.
Arulappan vs. Ahalya Naik, AIR 2001 SC 2783, wherein it
has been held that merely because it is lawful to grant
specific relief, the court need not grant such an order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereby allowing the plaintiff to take an unfair advantage
over the defendants. In the case on hand also, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to any such unfair advantage.”
35. From the above decisions, it is clear that the plaintiff has to
prove the passing of consideration and the sale agreement to be genuine
for the discretionary relief of the specific performance. In the instant
case, even the perusal of Ex.A.1 sale agreement shows that there is a gap
between the contents mentioned in the document and the signature of the
defendant. Even, PW.1 in his evidence, admitted that the gap between the
signature and the contents is 1 ½ inches.
36. The over all analysis of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 shows that
the evidence of PW.2 is not reliable when his entire evidence in respect of
A1 sale agreement is contrary to the factual aspects. Further, PW.1 himself
admitted his wife and son to be the partners and the possibility of the
defendant handing over the unfilled stamp papers, thereby completely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
supporting the case of the defendants. The evidences of DW.4 and DW,5
in respect of the purchaser of the stamp paper and admittedly, the stamp
paper purchased on 22.03.2004 has been used for execution of the sale
agreement in Ex.A.1 after the period of 1 ½ years, i.e, on 16.11.2005.
Further when Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid as advance, 7 months has been
fixed for completing the sale for balance payment of Rs.20,000/-. It does
not satisfy the conscience of this Court to accept the sale agreement in
Ex.A.1 as true and genuine. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the
sale agreement in Ex.A.1. The decisions relied on by the respondent is not
relevant to the facts of the present case.
37. The Lower Appellate Court has couched and framed the
following points for consideration. It could be seen that the points have
been couched in one and the same paragraph. Even though they could
have been separated and framed as to whether the finding of the Trial
Court that the suit at sale agreement is true, whether the plaintiff was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, where the
plaintiff is entitled to relief for specific performance of contract, whether
the appeal can be allowed, all the above have been couched together.
However, the Lower Appellate Court has analyzed in detail all the
documents and the oral evidences and has considered all the factual issues
in detail and arrived at a finding by giving cogent reasons, has therefore
complied with the procedure mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.
38. The first substantial question of law is answered in the
affirmative and in view of the above findings, the second question of law
is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
39. The Lower Appellate Court has arrived at a findings of fact
which is based on the material available on record and there is no
perversity or illegality for this Court to interfere in the Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40. In view of the same, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. The
Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court is confirmed.
However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
drl
To
1. The Additional District Court,
Fast Track Court, No.I, Salem.
2. The Sub Court, Mettur.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J
drl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
