Madras High Court
S.M.Sivasamy [Died vs S.Nagarajan on 20 February, 2025
AS.No.4 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
A.S.No.4 of 2019
S.M.Sivasamy [Died]
2. Jayamani
3. Radha
4. Suba Sivasamy
[Sole appellant died. A2 to A4 are brought
on record as LRs of deceased sole appellant
vide order dated 21.06.2024 made in
CMP.No.8431/2023]
... Appellants/Plaintiff
-Vs-
S.Nagarajan
... Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER: First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 14.02.2018 and
made in O.S.No.68 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
For Appellants : Mr.Kandhan Duraisami
For Respondent : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
for Mr.B.Kumarasamy
*****
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
AS.No.4 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant, and the sole defendant is the respondent
herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred according to
their litigative status before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts which give rise to the instant First Appeal is that, the
plaintiff and the defendant entered into a unregistered Sale Agreement on
20.04.2010 agreeing to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration
of Rs.12,86,500/- and on the date of the agreement, the plaintiff has paid an
advance of Rs.60,000/- and again on 28.10.2010, an additional advance
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid. According to the plaintiff, the period for
performance was not fixed. It was agreed between the parties that within 3
months from the date of disposal of O.S.No.33 of 2008, as and when the
plaintiff pays the balance sale consideration, it is the responsibility of the
defendant to execute the sale deed. However, the defendant did not execute
the sale deed. It was further stated that the plaintiff has issued a legal notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
on 17.04.2013 and in spite of the same, the defendant did not come forward to
execute the sale deed. On the contrary, he has sent a reply notice containing
the false allegations.
4. Disputing the above contentions, the defendant filed a written
statement with a defence that the alleged Agreement dated 20.04.2010 was
never intended to operate as an agreement and it was executed only as a
security for the loan transaction. It was further contended that, if really there
was a Sale Agreement, there would not have been receipt of a small amount of
Rs.60,000/-, being 5% of the total sale consideration. It was also further
pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.
5. At trial, the plaintiff examined two witnesses and on behalf of the
defendant, 4 witnesses were examined. The plaintiff and the defendant each
relied as many as 7 documents and as a Court document, 2 documents were
marked.
6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-
“1/ 20/04/2010k; njjpapll; jhth fpua xg;ge;jk; cz;ikahdjh> rl;lg;go
bry;yj;jf;fjh>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
2/ jhth fhyf;bfLtpdhy; ghjpf;fg;l;Ls;sjh>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
3/ thjp jhthr;brhj;ij fpuak; bgWk; nehf;fpy; jd; g';F xg;ge;jj;ij
epiwntw;Wtjw;F jahuhft[k; tpUg;gkhft[k; ,Ue;jhuh>
4/ thjpf;F mth; nfhhpa[s;s Vw;wij Mw;Wf ghpfhuk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjh>
5/ ntW vd;d ghpfhuk; thjpf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fJ>”
(Extracted as it is)
7. In respect of the issue no.2, viz., the validity of the Agreement, the
Trial Court has given an affirmative finding on the basis of admission of the
defendant. In respect of the limitation, the Trial Court found that since there
was no period for performance fixed, the Agreement is not barred by
limitation. In respect of the other issues, viz., issue nos.1, 3 and 4, the Trial
Court has elaborately considered various aspects and was of the view that the
plaintiff did not verify the title of the defendant and not even verify the status
in respect of the disposal of the suit. Therefore, ultimately found that the
plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and as a
concomitant, the Trial Court granted the alternate relief directing the
defendant to repay a sum of Rs.2,07,833/- and advance amount of
Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
8. Heard Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend
that the defendant had categorically admitted the sale agreement, and that
when the agreement itself stipulates that it was the responsibility on the part of
the defendant to execute the Sale Deed immediately after disposal of the suit
in O.S.No.33 of 2008, the conduct of the defendant not executing sale deed,
knowing fully well the suit in O.S.No.33 of 200 was already disposed, cannot
be put against the plaintiff. It was also contended that having the defendant
admitted the agreement and denying the relief of specific performance is
contrary to law. It was further contended that the plaintiff has always been
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would
vehemently contend that the very agreement was never intended to operate as
a Sale Agreement and it was only executed as a security for the loan
transaction. Such nature of security would manifest from the conduct of the
plaintiff, as the plaintiff has entered into a contract only after disposal of suit,
and that the plaintiff did not verify the title of the defendant. It was also
contended that the receipt of very paltry sum of Rs.60,000/- would also be an
indication to show the suit agreement as a security.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
11. From the submissions made by either side, the following points
arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
4. To what other relief?
Point No.3
12. In respect of limitation, as rightly found by the Trial Court, the
Agreement did not stipulate the period for performance. If there is no period
fixed for performance, it is settled principle of law that the cause of action to
file a specific performance suit would commence from the date of refusal to
execute the sale deed. In this case, the refusal came into existence through
reply notice on 20.04.2013. In the reply notice, the defendant has disputed the
agreement. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the specific performance
suit commences only from the date of receipt of the reply notice. Here, the
suit was filed in the year 2013. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Trial
Court that the suit is not barred by limitation is perfectly in order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
13.Point Nos.1, 2 & 4: In respect of ready and willingness and
entitlement of specific performance, the sale agreement stipulates that, as and
when the plaintiff makes the payment, within three months from the date of
disposal of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008, the defendant has to execute the sale
deed. Even according to the plaintiff, on the date of execution of the sale
agreement, the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2008 has already been disposed off.
Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant, if the
plaintiff was really intended to have the Sale Agreement with the defendant,
he would have verified the pendency of the suit. The absence of verification
with regard to the pendency of the suit would manifest the absence of
intention to have the sale deed of the suit property. As the Trial Court rightly
found, when the plaintiff comes forward to purchase a property, it is expected
from him a thorough verification of title. From the proclivity of the
transaction, this Court could not find any efforts made by the plaintiff to
verify the title of the defendant. In such view of the matter, this Court does
not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly,
this Appeal lacks merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
14. In the result, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed by confirming the
order of the Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
20.02.2025
kmi
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking order
NCC: Yes/No
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
kmi
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 05:33:55 pm )
