Madras High Court
Premraja vs Pachaiammal (Died) on 2 April, 2025
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015
and
Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015
Premraja ... Appellant
vs.
1.Pachaiammal (died)
2.Djeyarattiname ... Respondents
(R2 brought on record as LRs of
the deceased sole respondent
viz., Pachaiammal vide Court
order dated 11.04.2022 made in
CMP.Nos.19705 & 19719 of 2021
in A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015)
Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024
1.Pachaiammal (died)
2.Djeyarattiname ... Cross objctors
vs.
Premraja ... Respondent
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024
COMMON PRAYER : Appeal suit has been filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 07.08.2014
passed in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Puducherry.
For Appellant in ... Ms.Anisha Gupta
both Appeals and for
respondent in Cross
Objection
For Respondent in ... Mr.T.M.Naveen
both appeals and for
petition in Cross Objection
COMMON JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in
O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, the
defendant has preferred the appeal suit in A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and the
plaintiff has preferred the Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
rankings in the trial Court.
3.Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
4.The defendant in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal
District Court, Puducherry, is the appellant in A.S.No.80 of 2015 and
A.S.No.81 of 2015 and in the cross objection, the plaintiff is the cross
objector.
5.The plaintiff's case is as follows:
Originally A and B schedule suit properties belonged to one
Gothandapani, the father of the defendant. Gothandapani entered into a sale
agreement in respect of the A schedule suit property with the plaintiff on
30.11.1984 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and also received an
advance amount of Rs.8,000/-towards the sale consideration from the
plaintiff. On 02.03.1985 the said Gothandapani also received the balance sale
consideration of Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff. Gothandapani delivered the
possession of the A schedule suit property on 30.11.1984 itself and thus the
plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A schedule suit
property. Gothandapani was not able to execute the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff due to legal difficulties under the Urban Land Celing Act. The
defendant, after the death of his father and also on withdrawal of the Urban
Land Ceiling Act, promised to execute and register the sale deed in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
the plaintiff in terms of the sale agreement dated 30.11.1984. The plaintiff
also raised a brick built thatched hut in the A schedule suit property and lived
there with her grandson. The ration card, voter Identity card, electricity
documents also stand in the name of the plaintiff. The said Gothandapani also
offered to sell the B schedule suit property to the plaintiff for a valid sale
consideration of Rs.50,000/- and to that effect, Gothandapani also entered
into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 09.04.1987 and the plaintiff paid a
sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as advance on 09.04.1987 and
05.07.1988 respectively and to that effect, Gothandapani made endorsements.
On 09.04.1987 Gothandapani also delivered possession of the B schedule suit
property to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff is also in possession and
enjoyment of the B schedule of suit property from 09.04.1987 onwards. Even
though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.25,000/- and to perform her part of contract,
Gothandapani was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed in respect of
the B schedule suit property. After the death of Gothandapani, the defendant
being the legal heir promised to execute and register the sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff in respect of A and B schedule properties but he was evading
to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
expressing her willingness and readiness to pay the balance sale consideration
in respect of A and B schedule suit properties as per the agreements but the
defendant having acknowledged the receipt of the notice failed to issue any
reply to the plaintiff. Though the time for execution of the sale deeds was
fixed as three months and two months respectively in respect of A and B
schedule suit properties from the date of the agreements dated 30.11.1984 and
09.04.1987 respectively, time was not essence of the contract since the
plaintiff is in possession of the A and B schedule suit properties from the date
of the sale agreements, hence, the suit was filed and pleaded to allow the suit.
6.The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement and
denied the allegations contained in the plaint and contended that the suit is
not maintainable either in law or on facts. This defendant denies that the suit
A and B schedule properties belonged to his father and in fact the said
properties are owned by his mother by a sale deed dated 10.03.1982 and as
the universal legatee of the will dated 30.01.1989. As per the terms of the
alleged agreement, the sale was to be concluded within three months from the
date thereof and on the failure of the vendor to execute a sale deed in favour
of the purchaser, when the latter was ready and willing to purchase the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
the purchaser would only be entitled to the payment of twice the advance
amount and therefore the claim of the plaintiff is untenable. There was no
legal impediment to execute a sale deed in respect of the A schedule property
and got it registered as the other plots falling under the same R.C. No.6/4
were sold out and registered during the same period. The alleged legal
impediment under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act for the sale
of A schedule property is denied. If really any such legal impediment was
there, then on the same ground the suit agreement would become legally
unenforceable in as much as any agreement entered intending to defeat the
provision of any law being in force would void an abitio. The fact that the
plaintiff raised a brick built thatched hut in the A schedule property would not
give her any right to seek specific performance of the alleged agreement dated
30.11.1984. The plaintiff has to prove that this defendant's father entered into
an agreement in respect of the sale of the B schedule property for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- and that his father received an advance amount of Rs.25,000/-on
two occasions on 09.04.1987 and 05.07.1988 at Rs.10,000/- and Rs15,000/-
respectively and to that effect this defendant's father made endorsements, that
the plaintiff was put in possession of the B schedule property and that the
plaintiff had raised brick built foundation for raising building in the B
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
schedule property. It is not true that the coconut trees, drumstick trees and
banana trees are planted in the B schedule property. It is also not true that
there is a cattle shed raised by the plaintiff in the B schedule property. The
plaintiff by saying that she raised cattle shed and plants in the B schedule
property would not give rise to any right to the plaintiff to enforce the alleged
agreement dated 09.04.1987 and also cannot claim any kind of right, title or
interest. The similar plots in R.S.No.6/4 in which the B schedule property
situate were sold out and registered to the third parties during the
contemporary period and even if the sale could not take place on the date of
the alleged agreement on account of legal impediment under the Urban Land
(Celing and Regulation) Act, the alleged agreement dated 09.04.1987 could
not be enforced after the repeal of the said Act in as much as any agreement
intending to defeat any law being in force would be ab initio. The alleged
agreement in respect of the B schedule suit property is only for two months
period and therefore the suit for enforcement of the two alleged agreements
are clearly time-barred as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The
claim of the plaintiff that the time for performance of her obligations under
the alleged agreements dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 should never be
construed as the essence of the contract is totally ill-founded and untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
The plaintiff has no right to reserve by herself any right to file a separate suit
on prescription of title, as she would claim in as much as the law does not
enable her to do so. Even according to the pleadings of the plaintiff she is not
entitled to decree for specific performance as it is not in accordance with law
relating to specific performance. The plaintiff on facts and circumstances has
no right to join both the causes of action in respect of the alleged agreements
and thus the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of cause action. The
plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and therefore the plaint is liable to be
rejected. The plaintiff ought to have valued her relief for specific performance
on the market value of the A and B schedule properties on the date of the suit
and having failed to do so, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC. The value of the land of A and B schedule suit properties is
Rs.325/- per square feet. The plaintiff does not have any title, right or interest
over the A and B schedule properties either by virtue of the alleged
agreements dt.30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 or otherwise and consequently she
is liable to surrender the possession thereof to him. The universal legatee
under the will dated 30.1.1989 made by this defendant's mother is the
absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties entitled to recover the
possession thereof from the plaintiff. Therefore this defendant is making a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
counter claim for recovery of possession of the A and B schedule suit
properties from plaintiff and accordingly paying the Court fee of
Rs.91,406.75 u/s 25(d) of Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,
1972 and thus prayed to dismiss the suit with costs, to declare that the
defendant is the absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties, to direct
the plaintiff to deliver the possession of A and B schedule properties to the
defendant free of super-structure and to pay the costs of the counterclaim, and
to decree the counterclaim in favour of the defendant and pleads to dismiss
the suit.
7.The trial Court, based on the above pleadings and the counter claim,
framed the following issues and the additional issues for consideration;
1. Whether the sale agreements dated 30.11.1984 and
9.4.1987 are true?
2. Whether the plaintiff has paid the entire sale
consideration in respect of the sale agreement dated
30.11.1984?
3. Whether the plaintiff has paid totally advance sale
amount of Rs.25,000/-in respect of the sale agreement
dt.9.4.1987?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
4. Whether time fixed is essence of contract for both
agreements?
5. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract?
6. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
7. Whether the defendant's father was saleable interest in
the suit properties at the time of execution of sale
agreement?
8. Whether the defendant is the absolute owner of the
property following the will mentioned in the written
statement?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific
performance and permanent injunction?
10. Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of
declaration and recovery of possession of the suit A and B
schedule properties?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (13.03.2008):
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
8.On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and
six other witnesses were examined as Pws 2 to 7 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were
marked. On the side of the Defendant, the defendant examined himself as
DW1 and Ex.B1 & Ex.B5 were marked.
9.The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record, dismissed the suit with reference to the relief of specific
performance under the agreements for sale dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987
and the suit is decreed with reference to the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendant or his henchmen or his agents from dispossessing
the plaintiff in the suit properties without costs. Aggrieved by this, the
defendant preferred the two appeal suits and the plaintiff preferred cross
objection.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the
trial Court erred in law in dismissing the counterclaim and the judgment and
decree of the trial Court is against law and weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case and further contended that the trial Court, while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
denying the relief of specific performance, could not grant the relief of
permanent injunction against the true owner of the property. The trial Court
overlooked the fact that the time is the essence of the contract and the
plaintiff has no right to continue in the suit property once her claim for
specific performance is negative and the defendant is entitled to claim back
the property. Further contended that after the demise of the power of attorney,
the principal was alive and the plaintiff /agreement holder did not even
approach her for execution of the sale deed and since the time has lapsed, she
had every right to bequeath her property to her own son, the defendant in the
suit. The trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence having found
that the defendant is the owner of the property, even otherwise, ought not to
have denied the relief of declaration and possession. The trial Court erred in
negativing the counter claim for possession by the defendant on the ground of
long and uninterrupted possession and reiterated the other grounds raised the
memorandum of grounds of appeals and pleaded to set aside the judgment
and decree of the trial Court and to allow the appeal suits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
11.To support his argument, the learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant relied on the following judgments:
1).Judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.295 & 299 of
2011 (Premraja Vs. Jayalakshmi)
2).2009 – 5 – L.W.528 (Kalash Properties Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by its Chairman and Managing Diretor
G.Kaliasundaram, having office at J 75 Anna Nagar
East, Chennai – 600 102).
3).(2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 18 ( Saradamani
Kandappan Vs. S.Rajalakshmi and others)
4).Judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
dated 21.11.2023 in A.S.(MD).No.108 of 2012
(Oomman Babu Vs. Sadasivam Thambi and Ors.)
5).(2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 223 (FGP Limited
Vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and Another)
6).(2024) 1 MLJ 755 (Ultra Marina & Pigments Ltd.,
Vs. Kala Karmegam and Ors).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
7).(1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 639 (Mohan Lal
(Deceased) Through His Lrs. Kachru and others
Vs.Mirza Abdul Gaffar and another).
8).(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 708 (Roop Singh
(Dead) Through Lrs Vs. Ram Singh (Dead) Through
LRS)
9).(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 676 (Shrimant
Shamrao Suryavanshi and another Vs.Pralhad Bhairoba
Suryavanshi (Dead) By Lrs. And others)
10).(1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1 (K.S.Vidyanadam
and others Vs. Vairavan)
12.The learned counsel for the respondent in appeal suits/cross objector
submitted that the findings of the trial Court is against law and with regard to
the rejecting the claim of the relief of specific performance, the
respondent/cross objector is entitled to the relief of specific performance,
hence, the denial of the said relief by the trial Court to the Cross objector is
incorrect, unjust, improper, illegal, unsustainable and untenable. The
findings of the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is erroneous one
and time is not the essence of the contract and thus, pleaded to set aside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
judgment and decree of the trial Court with reference to the relief of specific
performance and thus pleaded to allow the cross objection.
13.To support his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent in
appeal suits /cross objection relied upon the following judgments:
1).(2022) 14 Supreme Court Cases 793
(P.Daivasigamani Vs. S.Sambandan)
2).(2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 233 (Beemaneni
Maha Lakshmi Vs. Gangumalla Appa Rao)
3).(2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 731 (Madhukar
Nivrutti Jagtap & Ors Vs. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar
& Ors.
4).(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429 (J.P.Builders &
Anr V. A.Ramadas Rao & Another)
5). 1995 (2) LW 50 (DB) (Vairavan V.
K.S.Vaidyanandam & Ors)
6).2012 (5) LW 171 ( The Executive Engineer,
Arulmigu Yoganarasimmar Devasthanam Vs. S.Kuppan)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
7).(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 289 (Vundavalli
Ratna Manikyam & Anr V. V.P.R.N. Prasada Rao)
8).(2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 220 (Chennadi
Jalapathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy & Anr.)
9).(1970) 3 Supreme Court Cases 140 (R.C.Chandiok &
Anr. V. Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Orrs.)
10).(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 723 (Vasanthi V.
Venugopal)
11). (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 676 (Shrimant
Shamrao Suryavanshi V. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi)
12.(2004) 4 CTC 465 (FB) (Bombay) (Sadashiv
Chander Bhamgare V. Eknath Pandharinath Nangude)
13.ILR 1998 Kar 3230 (FB) (Narasimhasetty V.
Padmasetty)
14.(2001) 1 Mah LJ 79 (Balasaheb Manikrao
Deshmukh V. Rama Lingoji Warthi)
15.1994 MhLJ 1145 (FB) (Mahadeo Nathuji Patil V.
Surjabai Khushalchand Lakkad)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
16.(2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 807 (Ramesh Chand
V. Nand Lal)
17.(1999) 3 LW 775 (Parvathi Ammal V.
M.Kuppusamy, M.Ramachandran)
18.AIR 1940 Oudh 1 (Mt.Firdos Jahan V.
Dr.Mohammed Yunus & Ors)
19.AIR 1944 Oudh 212 (Ewaz Ali V. Mt.Firdous Jehan
& Ors)
20.AIR 1952 Raj 141 (Ratanlal V. Kishanlal & Ors)
21.ILR (1991) 1 Delhi 303 (Nanak Builders &
Investors Pvt. Ltd. V. Sh.Vinod Kumar Alag)
22.2005 (82) DRJ 513 (S.K.Gupta V. Avtar Singh Bedi
& Others)
23.1999 (1) CTC 36 (Subbamma V. Masanamuthu
Thevar & others)
14.The points for consideration before this Court are,
i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance of sale agreements dated 30.11.1984 and
09.04.1987?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
ii).Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of
declaration and recovery of possession of the suit A and B
schedule properties?
iii).Whether the suit is barred by limitation? And
iv).To what other reliefs?
15.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
16.On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the plaint schedule
property was owned by the defendant's mother namely Jayamarie. Her
husband is Gothandam, the defendant is the son of Jayamarie and
Gothandam. Jayamarie executed a power of attorney deed dated 06.06.1981
in favour of her husband Gothandam, which is evidenced Ex.A13.
17.In pursuance of the power of attorney deed, Gothandam entered into
a sale agreement for the sale of plaint A and B schedule properties in favour
of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and 50,000/- on 30.11.1984 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
09.04.1987 respectively. The Plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.8,000/-
on 30.11.1984 in respect of A schedule property and also paid an advance
amount of Rs.2,000 on 02.03.1985 in respect of A schedule properties.
Further, the plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on 09.04.1987
and an amount of Rs.15,000/- on 05.07.1988 for B schedule properties. The
time for execution of contract is three months in respect of A schedule
properties and two months in respect of B schedule properties from the date
of sale agreements.
18.On perusal of records, it is noticed that the alleged sale agreements
dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 were marked as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. On
perusal of Ex.A1 & A2, it is noticed that there is no reference for giving
possession of the plaint schedule properties by the power of Attorney to the
plaintiff at the time of executing Ex.A1 & A2 fhyp kid tpw;fpua
ml;thd;!; urPJ/ According to the plaintiff, Ex.A1 & A2 are the alleged
sale agreements, based upon this, the suit has been filed.
19.Gothandam died on 08.02.1988, it is evidenced by Ex.B5. Since the
power of attorney agent namely Gothandam died on 08.02.1988, the power of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
attorney deed dated 06.06.1981 given by Jayamarie to her husband comes to
an end. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have called upon Jayamarie to
execute the sale deed. In this regard, no material to show that the plaintiff
asked Jayamarie to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreements
dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 executed by her power of attorney agent
namely Gothandam.
20.On perusal of the records, it reveals that Jayamarie bequeathed her
property on 30.01.1989. It is evidenced by Ex.B4 copy of the Will, which is
not disputed by the plaintiff. Jayamarie died on 26.06.1992 after her death,
the Will came into force, the defendant became the owner of the plaint
schedule properties. Admittedly, the defendant herein is the owner of the
plaint schedule properties, it is also not disputed by the plaintiff.
21.On perusal of the written statement and the evidence of the
defendant DW1 Premraja, it reveals that the defendant did not deny the
signature contained in the sale agreements Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 executed by his
father. Though the defendant denied that his father delivered the possession
of A schedule properties to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in possession and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
enjoyment of the same. In pursuance of the agreements, in fact, the plaintiff
is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the defendant sought
the relief of recovery of possession from the plaintiff by way of counter
claim. In such circumstances, in fact, it is admitted that the plaintiff is in
possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. It was evidenced
by Ex.A6 to Ex.A9.
22.On perusal of the cross examination of defendant DW1, it is noticed
that the defendant admitted that the property in R.C.No.6/4 were divided into
several plots for sale. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchasing
plots 16 & 17 as per Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also in its finding
based on the evidence comes to the conclusion that the sale agreements dated
30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 are true and the defendant's father has saleable
right interest in the suit properties in pursuance of the registered power of
attorney deed dated 06.06.1981 which is also categorically admitted by DW1
in his cross examination. The observation of the trial Court in para 7 runs as
follows:
“ 7.. . . . . . . . When there is no specific denial that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
signatures found in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not that of him,
this Court construes that it is the father of the defendant who
had executed the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for a valid sale
consideration to and in favour of the plaintiff is clearly
proved and therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that
the sale agreements dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 are true
and thus the defendant's father has saleable right interest in
the suit properties in pursuance of the registered power of
attorney deed dated 06.06.1981 which is also categorically
admitted by DW1 in his cross-examination. . . . . . . .
23.Further, it is noticed that the trial Court observed on evidence and
concluded that the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the
suit properties from 1984. This observation in para – 8 of the judgment runs
as follows:
“8.. . . . . . . . the possession of the suit properties is
clearly established by the evidence of the plaintiff and also by
the documentary evidence namely E.A6 & Ex.A7 photocopies
of electricity receipts, Ex.A9 & Ex.A10 photocopies of wealth
tax particulars of the suit schedule properties standing in the
name of the plaintiff and its valuation particulars; Ex.A11
photocopies of the documents for obtaining electricity
connection by the plaintiff; Ex.A12 is the photocopy of the
donation deed executed by plaintiff's father. These
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
documents clearly shows that the plaintiff is in continuous
and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties from 1984.. . . . . . . . ”
Thus the trial Court found that the plaintiff is in continuous and
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from 1984
besides the alleged sale agreements dated 30.11.1984 and 09.04.1987 are
true.
24.Normally, in the sale of immovable properties, time is considered
not to be an essence of contract, unless such intention is made out either from
expressed terms of contract or implied intention of the parties. In this case,
after the two months of agreement, the seller, the defendant's father, received
part of the sale consideration and made an endorsement as is evidenced on
record. It reflects that time would not be an essence of contract in regard to
the execution of the sale deed as evidenced by putting the plaintiff in the
portion of suit properties by the sellers. Putting the plaintiff in possession of
the property reflects clear indication the time was not intended to be an
essence for completion of the sale.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
25.The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/defendant are not helpful to support his case.
26.Further, on perusal of the records, the fact reveals that with regard
to A schedule properties, the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration to
Gothandapani, the father of the defendant. With regard to the B schedule
properties, the total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-, in which, the plaintiff
paid Rs.25,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- has to be paid.
27.In view of the above, the judgment and decree of the trial Court with
regard to dis entitling the plaintiff for specific performance is set aside and
the cross objection filed by the cross objector (plaintiff) is allowed. The
defendant is not entitled for declaration and recovery of possession. With
regard to the relief of permanent injunction, the judgement and decree of the
trial Court is confirmed. The appeal suits in A.S.Nos. 80 & 81 of 2015 are
liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Therefore, the
plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-
before the trial Court within two months and the defendant is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
execute the sale deed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition, if any, is closed.
Index/Internet: Yes / No
Speaking order: Yes/No 02.04.2025
sms
To
1.The Principal District Court, Puducherry.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
sms
Pre-delivery judgment made in
A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 01:53:14 pm )
