Madras High Court
Rajendiran vs Perumayee on 24 November, 2025
S.A.No.158 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A. No. 158 of 2014
Rajendiran,
S/o.Sengoda Gounder,
Pudukadu,
Malliyapadi,
Sankarapuram Taluk,
Villupuram District. ...Appellant
Versus
1.Perumayee
W/o.G.R.Kandasamy,
Kottukottai,
Kottakarai Parigam,
Pottiyam Trust,
Sankarapuram Taluk,
Villupuram District.
2.Sarasu,
D/o.G.R.Kandasamy,
Vadachettikara Thottam,
Manmalai Kattukottai,
Sankarapuram Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3.Padmini,
D/o.G.R.Kandasamy,
W/o.Govindasamy,
Damkarar Thottam,
Ulugamkathan Post,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
S.A.No.158 of 2014
Kallakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER in S.A.:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013 made in
A.S.No.154 of 2005 on file of Sub Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2005 made in O.S.No.621 of 2000 on
the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi and pray to
set aside the same.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellant : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for
M/s.P.V.Law Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef for R3.
R1 – Served.
R2 – Refused.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.The plaintiff in O.S. No. 621 of 2000 has preferred this Second
Appeal, assailing the concurrent dismissal of his suit by the I Additional
District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, by judgment and decree dated
11.07.2005; and the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, in A.S. No. 154 of 2005, by
judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
3.The plaintiff is the appellant and the defandant is the respondent.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in
the trial court.
4.The case is brief: According to the plaintiff, a sale agreement
dated 04.03.1999 was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant
whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property at a total
consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The plaintiff paid Rs.13,000/- as advance
and undertook to pay the balance Rs.2,000/- on or before 04.03.2000.
When the defendant evaded execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff
issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2000 calling upon the defendant to
execute the deed. The defendant replied on 27.01.2000 containing false
allegations, leading to the present suit for specific performance.
5.The defendant states that the parties are related and there is
longstanding enmity. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and his
associates, forcibly obtained the defendant’s thumb impression on blank
stamp papers and fabricated an agreement dated 04.03.1999. It is stated
that the plaintiff habitually signs documents. The defendant contends that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
the suit property had already been sold to one Mrs. Ranjitham, a fact well
known to the plaintiff, and that the present suit is a device to grab the
property.
6.At the time of admission, this Court framed the following
substantial question of law which is reproduced verbatim here below:
“a)Whether both the Courts below were right in
dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of the
subsequent purchaser of the property when admittedly the
suit property was sold in favour of D.W.3 much after the
execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the
plaintiff?
b)Whether the findings of both the Courts below to
the effect that the defendant had executed the agreement of
sale under coercion can be termed as perverse since it runs
contrary to the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff
wherein the plaintiff apart from examining himself had also
examined the scribe and attestor of the document marked
as Ex.A.1?
c)Whether both the Courts were right in going into
the issue of title of the defendant in a suit for specific
performance and the same runs contrary to the provisions
of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
d)Whether the findings rendered by both the Courts
below can be termed as perverse due to improper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record?
7.Evidence on Ex.A1: The plaintiff relies on Ex.A1, the agreement
dated 04.03.1999 purportedly executed by the defendant for Rs. 15,000,
denies execution and consideration. To prove Ex.A1, the plaintiff
examined an attesting witness and the scribe as P.W.2 and P.W.3. It is
not in dispute that the defendant was in the habit of signing documents,
which is evident from Ex. A3 and Ex. B2, yet Ex.A1 bears only the
defendant’s thumb impression, with no satisfactory explanation for this
departure from his usual practice.
8.As regards the recitals of Ex A1, its recitals state that the plaintiff
was in possession of the property as a lessee; yet, contrarily in evidence,
the plaintiff professed ignorance as to who was in possession of the
property. The Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant owned only a
1/3rd share in the schedule property, whereas the defendant asserted
ownership over the entire extent and proved that the entire extent had
been sold to Mrs. Ranjitham under Ex B2 prior to the suit. These
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
contradictions create considerable doubt about the genuineness of Ex. A1
and the circumstances under which it came into existence. Even the one-
year period allowed in Ex. A1 for payment of the meagre balance of
Rs.2,000/- appears unusual.
9.It is undisputed that after the alleged execution of Ex.A1 and
prior to the institution of the suit on 14.07.2000, the defendant conveyed
the entire property to Mrs. Ranjitham under Ex.B2 dated 20.05.1999; she
was examined as D.W.3. Both courts below held that non-joinder of the
subsequent purchaser was fatal.
10.In this regard, the plaintiff places reliance on the following
citations to contend that a subsequent purchaser need not be impleaded as
a party.
(i)Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivanth Mishra Alias Gadasa Guru,
[(1995) 3 SCC 147].
(ii)S.G.Kannappan vs Murugesan and others,
[MANU/TN/0325/2001].
(iii)Gurmit Singh Bhatia vs Kiran Kant Robinson and others
[(2020) 13 SCC 773].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
The respondent cites the recent Supreme Court decision in M/s. J.N. Real
Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors., (2025 INSC 611) which holds that a
subsequent purchaser is a proper, not a necessary, party. However, such
purchaser ought to be impleaded to determine the genuineness of the
subsequent transaction and to secure complete and effective adjudication.
11.The significant distinction arises between:
a)A pre-suit purchaser who acquires the property without
knowledge of the sale agreement; and
b)A purchaser pendente lite—one who buys after institution of the
suit.
A purchaser pendente lite is governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act and is bound by the eventual decree; a pre-suit transferee is
not so bound. In the absence of D.W.3, the prior purchaser, no effective
decree for specific performance can be passed; any decree behind her
back would be a mere “paper decree,” incapable of execution. Her
presence is also necessary to determine whether she is a bona fide
purchaser for value without knowledge of the earlier agreement. As on
the date of institution of the suit, the defendant had no saleable interest in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
the suit property, the same having already been conveyed to D.W.3. The
non-joinder of the prior purchaser therefore assumes significance. Both
courts below found this defect as substantial and dismissed the suit. This
Court finds no infirmity in that reasoning.
12.In Kasturi v. Uyyamperumal, [(2005) 6 SCC 733], para 6, the
Supreme Court held as under:
“6.In our view, a bare reading of this provision namely,
second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the CPC would
clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific
performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the
contract or if they are dead their legal representatives as also
a person who had purchased the contracted property from the
vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes
rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A
purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he
had purchased with notice of the contract, but a person who
claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a
necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests
are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a
necessary party. Tests are - (1) there must be a right to some
relief against such party in respect of the controversies
involved in the proceedings (2) no effective decree can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
passed in the absence of such party.
13.In a suit for specific performance, a subsequent purchaser of the
suit property is a necessary and a proper party and, where the decree
passed would directly affect his title and possession. Section 19(b) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 expressly enables a decree for specific
performance to be enforced against a person claiming under the vendor,
including a subsequent purchaser, unless he establishes that he is a bona
fide purchaser for value without notice. The questions whether the
subsequent purchaser had notice of the prior agreement and whether the
decree should bind him cannot be determined in his absence; his
presence is therefore indispensable. The Supreme Court in re Durga
Prasad v. Deep Chand, AIR 1954 SC 75; Kasturi v. Uyyamperumal,
[(2005) 6 SCC 733] that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party in a
specific performance suit. Non-impleadment may not, by itself, compel
dismissal of the suit, but any decree passed would be ineffectual against
such purchaser.
14.The courts below did not undertake a substantive adjudication
of title but only examined the extent of the defendant’s ownership
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
incidentally while assessing the validity of Ex. A1. The plaintiff himself
claimed that the defendant owned only 1/3rd share and had entered into a
separate agreement with another co-owner. However, Ex. B2 shows that
the defendant conveyed the entire extent to D.W.3, who is now in
possession. Incidental reference to ownership for deciding the validity of
Ex. A1 does not amount to adjudication of title.
15.The substantial questions of law stand answered in favour of
the defendant. The concurrent findings of the courts below are supported
by the evidence and applicable legal principles and disclose no perversity
or error warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
16.In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, all connected CMPs, if any, stand closed.
24.11.2025
ay
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
To
1.The Sub Court, Kallakurichi
2.The I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Records, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 04:16:12 pm )
