Madras High Court
M/S Love And Concern vs K.Dhananjayan on 24 November, 2025
C.S.No.104 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.S.No.104 of 2022 &
O.A.Nos.322 and 323 of 2022
M/s Love and Concern
rep.by its President
Mr.John Venkatesan ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. K.Dhananjayan
2. D.Karthick Raghunath
3. Dhanasekaran
4. D.Shyamala
5. D.Preethi
6. Saravanaperumal
7. Vijay Saravanaperumal
8. Sudha Saravanaperumal
9. D.Saranya
10.Sangeetha ... Defendants
Prayer:
The Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w VII (a)
1 of Civil Procedure Code for (a) Directing the defendants herein to
perform their part of contract in accordance with suit registered sale
agreement dated 07.05.2018 vide sale agreement document no.2503 of
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
C.S.No.104 of 2022
2018 on the office of the Sub-Registrar, Purasaiwakkam by accepting
the remaining sale consideration and to execute a sale deed in respect
of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff herein, in default, on behalf
of the defendants herein, the Assistant Registrar, Original Side of this
Court to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff herein; (b) for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their henchmen,
person or persons, agent or agents from in any manner interfering with
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; (c) for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their respective
authorised agents or persons from alienating or encumbering the suit
property to any third parties in any manner.
For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Nambi Arroram for
Mr.K.V.Ramesh and
Mr.S.K.Masthan
For Defendants : Mr.P.T.Perumal for D3 to D5 & D9 and
D10
Mr.V.Chandrakanthan for D1, D2 and
D6 to D8
JUDGMENT
This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
defendants for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract based on
the agreement dated 07.05.2018; for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession
and enjoyment of property and for relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit
property to any third parties.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
(i) The plaintiff, viz., M/s Love and Concern (Trust) represented as
President of the Plaintiff had originally entered into a tenancy
st
agreement in respect of the suit property with the 1 defendant and the
said agreement is dated 11.03.1992. Pursuant to the said agreement,
the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and
he is paying rent of Rs.1,800/- per month. Further, the plaintiff had paid
a sum of Rs.20,000/- as advance. Originally, the suit property belongs
to T.R.P.Kothandaraman and after his demise, the defendants 1 to 10,
being legal heirs are entitled to the suit property. The defendants 1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
10 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of
Rs.3,51,14,365/- and the registered sale agreement was executed
between the parties on 07.05.2018 and on the same day, a sum of
Rs.1,15,42,500/- was paid towards advance of the sale price.
(ii) Further more, the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to the suit property prior to
the suit agreement, but due to certain unexpected subsequent events,
they were unable to proceed further with the same, thereby they
decided to enter into a registered agreement dated 07.05.2018. On
various dates, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/- to the
defendants. The remaining amount of Rs.2,35,71,865/- to be paid at
the time of execution of sale deed. In the said agreement, it was clearly
mentioned that the purchaser, as a tenant, who was already in
possession of 2790 sq.ft., of the schedule mentioned property, through
tenancy agreement dated 11.03.1992 and after entering into the said
agreement, the plaintiff is in occupation of entire suit property and
enjoying the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
(iii) The time fixed for completion of sale is 10 months, the plaintiff
was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying a
balance of sale consideration, but the defendants evaded to receive the
balance of sale consideration and to execute the sale deed. Thereafter,
the plaintiff issued notice dated 11.12.2021 to the defendants
expressing his willingness to purchase the property by paying the
remaining sale price. But the defendants have failed to perform their
part of contract. The plaintiff is in possession of the property and the
defendants are bound to execute the sale deed, therefore, filed the suit.
3. The brief averments of the Written Statements filed by the
defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 8 are as follows:
(I) As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff is a Trust, but no
documents have been filed to show that the plaintiff is a Trust. The
plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. The
agreement has been made between the defendants and M/s Love and
Concern represented by Mr.John Venkatesan, but no authorisation letter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
was filed along with the plaint to show that the said John Venkatesan is
representing the plaintiff’s trust. The suit is based on the agreement of
sale dated 07.05.2018 and the suit was filed on 22.12.2021, therefore,
the suit is barred by limitation.
(ii) It is true that the defendants are the owners of the property
through settlement deed executed by T.R.P.Kothandaraman through
settlement deed dated 21.07.1980 and as per the settlement deed,
there is a condition that Mr.K.Dasarathan shall enjoy the property during
his life time without any power of alienation and thereafter, his male
heirs shall enjoy the property absolutely. Similarly, the son of
K.Dhananjayan shall enjoy the property during his lifetime without any
power of alienation and his male heirs shall enjoy the property
absolutely.
(iii) The son of K.Saravanaperumal shall enjoy the property during
his life time without any power of alienation and his male heirs shall
enjoy the property absolutely. As per the settlement deed, son of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
K.Dhanasekar shall enjoy the property during his lifetime without any
power of alienation and his male heirs shall enjoy the property
absolutely. After settlement deeds, the defendants are enjoying the
properties along with their children, while so, the plaintiff approached
st
the said K.Dhananjayan, viz., 1 defendant to let out the property
allotted to him for monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- for a period of eleven
months.
(iv) In the said lease deed, it was wrongly stated that the lease
property to an extent of 2790 sq.ft.. In fact, the said Dhananjayan is
entitled to only to an extent of 1320 sq.ft., and other portion of an extent
of 780 Sq.ft., had been already sold under a sale deed dated
st
15.09.1997. The 1 defendant did not read the lease deed and believed
the words of the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached Dasarathan,
Dhansekaran and Saravana Perumal to purchase the property to an
extent of 8076 sq.ft., and the defendants also agreed to sell the property
and entered into sale agreement dated 11.03.2010 for Rs.2,86,02,500/-.
The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4,42,500/- to Dasarathan, Rs.2 Lakhs to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
Dhananjayan, Rs.2,00,000/- to Dhanasekaran and Rs.2,00,000/- to
Saravana Perumal. The balance of sale consideration to be paid within
60 days.
(v) Based on the said agreement, the plaintiff was not ready to get
the sale deed by paying the balance amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff,
again, offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.6 Crores and
requested these defendants to enter into Memorandum of
Understanding. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding dated
26.02.2018 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants,
but one Ramakrishnan another son of Dhananjayan did not sign in the
Memorandum of Understanding.
(vi) As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiff has to
pay a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- within a period of ten months after
adjusting advance amount of Rs.10,42,500/-. Further, the plaintiff paid
advance of Rs.50,000/- on 12.02.2017 and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on
23.06.2017, in total, he paid a sum of Rs.15,42,000/- Thereafter, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
26.02.2018, the plaintiff paid Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of Mrs.Saranya
and on 01.03.2018, he paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of
Saravanaperumal and Dhananjayan. In total, advance amount of
Rs.1,15,42,500/- was paid as per Memorandum of Understanding dated
26.02.2018 and the time was fixed for a period of ten months and the
same is the essence of contract. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to
perform his part of contract.
(vii) The plaintiff requested the defendants to enter into a fresh
agreement for sale for guideline value and promised to pay the balance
by cash. Believing the representation of the plaintiff, the defendants
agreed to execute fresh agreement dated 07.05.2018 for sale
consideration of Rs.3,51,14,365/- and the earlier advance amount of
Rs.1,15,42,500/- was adjusted as advance and the remaining amount
has to be paid within 10 months. As per the agreement dated
07.05.2018, the plaintiff, as a tenant, is in possession of 2790 sq.ft.,
only if the purchaser failed to pay the amount as per the agreement, he
shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of Rs.1,15,42,500/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
On 25.01.2017, the defendants sent a legal notice to the plaintiff based
on the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018.
(viii) The plaintiff suppressed the earlier agreement dated
11.03.2010 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018
and filed the suit with false allegations. The plaintiff has to pay the
balance amount of Rs.4,84,57,500/- as per the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 26.02.2018. Therefore, the plaintiff was not ready
to pay the balance amount and he is not entitled to specific performance
of contract. The plaintiff is in possession of the property only to an
extent of 2790 sq.ft. The value of the property is more than Rs.12
Crores and the plaintiff himself agreed to purchase the property for Rs.6
Crores.
(ix) The agreement dated 07.05.2018 was cancelled by the
defendants by notices dated 25.01.2019 and 10.10.2019 and again on
23.12.2021. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the
defendants 3 to 5, 9 and 10 are as follows:-
(i) There was no tenancy agreement executed by the plaintiff
st
-Trust M/s Love and Concern with the 1 defendant. In fact, the tenancy
agreement was executed on 11.03.1992 between the Church of the
st
Word and the 1 defendant for an extent of 2790 sq.ft., under the
agreement dated 11.03.1992. The lessee trust was permitted to put up
temporary thatched shed for running a church. The lessee was not
permitted to use premises other than church purposes. There is no
agreement between Dhananjayan and the plaintiff’s concern M/s Love
rd
and Concern. Neither the 3 defendant, Dhanasekaran nor his brothers
voluntarily entered into sale agreement as mentioned in the plaint. In
fact, Mr.John Venkatesan used his henchmen to coerce the defendants
and they are forced to compelling circumstances to agree for sale of the
properties. The total sale consideration mentioned in Paragraph No.7 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
the plaint are false. The plaintiff was not given the possession and
occupation of the entire suit property.
(ii) The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. The defendants categorically cancelled the said sale
agreement and they are no longer obligated under law to comply the
request of the plaintiff. The description of the property is incorrect and
the value of the property is not correct and the said John Venkatesan,
who is said to be christian pasture and the trustee of a Christian trust by
st
name, Church of the Word approached the 1 defendant and entered
into tenancy agreement taking possession of 2790 sq.ft., for running a
church. After constructing a church, the behavior of the said John
Venkatesan got changed.
(iii) Thereafter, the said John Venkatesan and all the four sons of
T.R.P.Kothandaraman entered into agreement on 11.03.2010 for sale
with M/s Love and Concern, a Social Service Trust. As per the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
agreement, an extent of 8076 sq.ft., land was agreed to be sold to the
total cost of Rs.2,86,02,500/-. The advance of Rs.10,42,500/- was
received, within 60 days the sale has to be completed, but the plaintiff
was not ready to get the sale deed. In the month of April, 2014, all the
defendants entered into Joint Venture agreement with M/s GKP builders
to build an apartment complex and then they have to vacate John
Venkatesan and handover the vacant possession to the builder. But the
said John Venkatesan refused to vacate the premises, therefore, the
defendants sent a legal notice dated 06.11.2017 and he failed to
perform his part of obligation. Thereafter, the said John Venkatesan
offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.6 crores and the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018 was entered between
the parties.
(iv) As per the Memorandum of Understanding a sum of
Rs.6 Crores was fixed as sale consideration and the time was fixed as
10 months, due to this development, joint venture agreement with M/s
GKP enterprise was cancelled on 07.03.2018. Thereafter, once again,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
a fresh agreement was executed between the defendants and M/s Love
and Concern. The total sale consideration was reduced to Rs.3.51
Crores and the sale has to be completed on or before 07.03.2018,
which was not again honoured by the said John Venkatesan, therefore,
the defendants issued notice dated 25.09.2019 but there was no any
reply.
(v) On 10.10.2019, another notice was issued stating that the
agreement dated 07.05.2018 stand cancelled and requested to receive
the refund and vacate the occupied possession within one month. The
said John Venkatesan has always violated his own terms and the suit is
not maintainable and it is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the
suit is liable to be dismissed and the said John Venkatesan may be
directed to receive the refund of advance amount of Rs.1,15,42,500/-
and to handover vacant possession of his occupied portion of the
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
5. Based on the above said pleadings and on perusal of the
records and hearing both sides, this Court framed the following issues
for trial on 19.09.2023:-
“(i) Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to file a suit on
behalf of the Trust?
(ii) Whether the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018 is true, valid
and binding on the defendants ?
(iii) Whether the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018 is
unenforceable due to the earlier agreement dated 11.03.2010 and
memo of understanding dated 26.02.2018?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part
of contract?
(v) Whether the plaintiff has been given with possession pursuant
to the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit
property?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific
performance?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of two permanent
injunctions as prayed?
(ix) Whether the time is the essence of contract?
(x) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and to what other
relief? If any.”
6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit as
follows:-
(i) The defendants are the owners of the suit property and they
entered into sale agreement with the plaintiff on 07.05.2018. the said
agreement is a registered one and as per the agreement, the sale price
was fixed as Rs.3,51,14,365/- and a sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/- was paid
towards advance of sale consideration. The remaining amount of
Rs.2,35,71,865/- to be paid at the time of execution of registration of
sale deed. The time was fixed for 10 months and prior to the
agreement, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the
property ,as tenant, for an extent of 2790 Sq.Ft., and thereafter, based
on the agreement, the entire property was handed over to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract, but the defendants are always evading from
executing sale deed, therefore, filed this suit.
(ii) In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, on the side of the
plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exhibits Ex.P.1 to
P.17. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and marked
Ex.D1 to D.8.
(iii) P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed about the execution of
agreement and the defendants have also admitted execution of the sale
agreement, therefore, as per the agreement, they have to execute the
sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration. When the plaintiff
was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying
remaining sale price, the defendants refused to execute sale deed,
therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of
contract.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
(iv) Further, the defendants are attempting to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property and they
also attempted to alienate the property and also create encumbrance
over the property, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of
permanent injunction and the suit is liable to be decreed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1, 2 and 6 to
8 would submit as follows:-
(I) The suit property belonged to the defendants and they entered
into sale agreement with the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a trust, but the suit
was not filed by the trust, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. In fact,
the defendants entered into agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff
initially entered into the premises as tenant in the year 1992 through
tenancy agreement dated 11.03.1992, to an extent 2790 sq.ft., and
thereafter, in the year 2010, the defendants entered into agreement with
the plaintiff to sell the property for a sum of Rs.2,86,02,500/- through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
sale agreement dated 11.03.2010. On 15.03.2010, the defendants
received a sum of Rs.10,42,500/- and the remaining amount of
Rs.2,75,56,000/- payable within 60 days but the said terms of
agreement have not been complied by the plaintiff.
(ii) Thereafter, again, the plaintiff offered to purchase the property
for a sum of Rs.6 Crores and the Memorandum of Understanding was
entered into between the parties dated 26.02.2018 and the advance
already received through the previous agreement for a sum of
Rs.10,42,500/- was adjusted for the advance of amount and again, the
plaintiff paid money to the defendants on various dates, totally paid a
sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/-.
(iii) The plaintiff after entering into the tenancy agreement in the
year 1992, refused to vacate the premises and three times entered into
agreement, but not performed his part of contract and without any
money to purchase the property, he filed the suit. Once the plaintiff
agreed to purchase the property for Rs.6 crores, he cannot file the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
for meager amount of Rs.1,15,42,500/-. The defendants admitted the
receipt of advance amount and they are ready to repay the amount, but
the plaintiff has not prayed for alternative relief of return of advance
money, already the plaintiff filed a petition to amend the plaint and the
same was dismissed, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief
and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(iv) As per the Memorandum of Understanding, 10 months time
was granted for completion of contract, but the plaintiff failed to perform
his part of contract, again, the plaintiff and defendants entered into
registered agreement dated 07.05.2018 by fixing the sale consideration
of Rs.3,51,14,365/- and earlier, the advance amount of Rs.1,15,42,500/-
has been adjusted as advance and the remaining consideration of
Rs.2,35,71,865/- is payable by the plaintiff within 10 months, but the
plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. As per the Memorandum
of Understanding, the plaintiff has to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.4,84,57,500/-, as per the request of the plaintiff, for guideline value
purpose, the subsequent agreement was entered for the lesser price
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
but the remaining amount was agreed by the plaintiff to pay in cash. But
the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff was not
ready and willing to perform his part of contract and during the cross
examination, he admitted that he has no money to purchase the
property at present and therefore, he is not ready and willing to perform
his part of contract and only to delay the proceedings, he has filed the
present suit.
8. The learned counsel appearing defendants 3 to 5 & 9 and 10
also reiterated the same arguments as that of the arguments made by
the learned counsel for the defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 8.
9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
entire documents on record.
10. Answers to Issue No.(i) Whether the plaintiff has the locus
standi to file a suit on behalf of the Trust?
The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of specific performance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
based on the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants dated
07.05.2018. The plaintiff in the cause title mentioned as M/s Love and
Concern represented by its President, John Venkatesan, however, in
the body of the plaint, he has stated that the plaintiff is a trust, therefore,
the defendants raised the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
The said agreement dated 07.05.2018 has not been denied by the
defendants. The said agreement has been marked as Ex.P.2. On
perusal of the Ex.P.2, Agreement of sale, revealed that the agreement
was entered between the defendants and M/s Love and Concern
represented by its President, John Venkatesan, therefore, the plaitniff,
Mr.John Venkatesan, on behalf of M/s Love and Concern, as a
President entered into an agreement and filed this suit and not on
behalf of the Trust, therefore, the plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit.
Hence the suit is maintainable. The suit is not filed by the Trust and the
agreement is also not on behalf of the Trust, thus, the issue is
answered.
11. Answers to Issue Nos.(ii) Whether the sale agreement dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
07.05.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? (iii) Whether
the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018 is unenforceable due to the
earlier agreement dated 11.03.2010 and memo of understanding dated
26.02.2018?
(i) According to the plaintiff, they entered into sale agreement
dated 07.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,51,14,365/- and already the
defendants received advance on various dates from 11.03.2010 to
09.04.2018 to the tune of Rs.1,15,42,500/-. The defendants also
admitted the receipt of advance as mentioned in the agreement and
according to the defendants, already they entered into agreement in the
year 2010 to sell the property and the same was not performed and
again, the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between
the parties.
(ii) As per the memorandum of understanding dated 26.02.2018
the sale price was fixed at Rs.6 Crores and the same was agreed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
between the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants
for fresh the agreement of sale for the guideline value. According to the
defendants, the balance money as agreed in the Memorandum of
Understanding has to be paid by cash and believing the said
representation, the defendants agreed to execute fresh agreement of
sale dated 07.05.2018. The plaintiff during the course of cross
examination admitted the Memorandum of Understanding and as per
the Memorandum of Understanding, the sale price was fixed at Rs.6
crores, according to the defendants, they entered into joint venture
agreement with one Builder, namely, M/s GKB Builders during April
2014 and thereafter, the plaintiff once again offered to purchase the
property for Rs.6 Crores and the advance amount of Rs.10,42,500/-
was adjusted as advance for the said amount and again based on the
Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiff paid the remaining amount
of Rs.1,05,00,000/-
(iii) Therefore, both the parties admitted the previous sale
agreements, however, thereafter, they entered into registered sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
agreement dated 07.05.2018 and the defendants also admitted the
execution of the said agreement and they also admitted the amount
already received by them towards advance, therefore, the defendants
cannot deny the execution of said sale agreement and the same is valid
and binding on the defendants .
(iv) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would
submit that already the defendants entered into an agreement dated
11.03.2010 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018 and
the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract. When the plaintiff
agreed to purchase the property for Rs.6 crores, through Memorandum
of Understanding dated 26.02.2018, the agreement dated 07.05.2018 is
unenforceable. But the plaintiff stated that though the earlier
agreements were entered into between the parties subsequent to the
last agreement dated 07.05.2018, the defendants agreed to sell the
properties. Therefore, after the execution of the registered agreement
dated 07.05.2018, they cannot deny the execution of the sale deed,
therefore, the agreement is enforceable. In this context, both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
parties agreed all the agreements dated 11.03.2010 and Memorandum
of Understanding dated 26.02.2018 and the suit agreement dated
07.05.2018. Therefore, the last agreement dated 07.05.2018 is
enforceable, since the earlier agreements have not been pressed into
by both the parties. Though the defendants relied upon the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018, they have not
approached this Court for enforcement of that Memorandum of
Understanding and the plaintiff has only approached this Court for
enforcement of agreement dated 07.05.2018, which is also admitted by
the defendants, therefore, agreement dated 07.05.2018 is enforceable
irrespective of the earlier agreements dated 11.03.2010 and the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.02.2018. Thus the issues (ii)
and (iii) are answered.
12. Answers to Issue No.(ix) Whether the time is the essence of
contract?
The plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of specific performance
of contract as per the agreement dated 07.05.2018 and the stipulated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
time of completion of contract is ten months, but the plaintiff has not
taken any steps to perform the contract within the said period of 10
months. According to the defendants, time is the essence of contract.
It is well settled law that normally as far as immovable properties are
concerned, time is not essence of contract, unless there is a specific
condition mentioned in the agreement. In the agreement, Ex.P.2, there
is no any specific condition mentioned about the time is essence of
contract. The defendants also had not taken any steps immediately
after the lapse of 10 months and it shows that the time is not essence of
contract. Thus the issue (ix) is answered.
13. Answers to Issue No.(iv) ‘Whether the plaintiff was ready and
willing to perform his part of contract?’
(I) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of
contract. The defendants also admitted the execution of the agreement.
The date of agreement is 07.05.2018 and time for completion of
contract is ten months, but within the said contractual period, the
plaintiff has not taken any steps to get the sale deed in his favour and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
not even sent notice to the defendants by expressing his willingness to
perform his part of contract and to get the sale deed in his favour for
repayment of agreed amount. Per contra, the defendants only sent a
notice to the plaintiff to the plaintiff by cancelling agreement in the year
2019. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that he has been always ready
and willing to perform his part of contract but the conduct shows he was
not ready and willing to get sale deed in his favour after payment of
balance sale price. It is well settled law that the plaintiff has to prove his
readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract from the date
of agreement till the date of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff in the
plaint pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part
of contract, but those pleadings are not sufficient to prove the readiness
and willingness and plaintiff must aver and prove his readiness and
willingness.
(ii) There is no evidence that the plaintiff has taken steps to
perform his part of contract. Moreover, the plaintiff, during his cross
examination categorically admitted that he has no money to pay the
balance of sale consideration at present and he is unable to pay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
balance of consideration. While so, it is clear that the plaintiff has no
money to purchase the property and was not always ready and willing
to perform his part of contract. Further, the conduct of the plaintiff by
entering into three sale agreements with the defendants after entering
into tenancy to some of the portion shows that by misusing his lease, he
refused to vacate the premises, therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his
readiness and willingness. Thus the issue is answered.
14. Answers to Issue Nos.(v) and (vi): (v) Whether the plaintiff
has been given with possession pursuant to the sale agreement dated
07.05.2018? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit
property?
According the plaintiff, he entered into possession to one portion
of the property to an extent of 2490 sq.ft., through tenancy agreement
dated 11.3.1992 and thereafter, he entered into sale agreement dated
07.05.2018 and based on the said agreement the possession was given
to him for the entire property, but according to the defendants, after
entering into sale agreement, the plaintiff taking advantage of the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
forcibly occupied entire suit property. In this context, it is relevant to
refer the recitals of the sale agreement, viz., Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.2, no
where it is stated about the possession of the entire property. Per
contra, clause 8 of sale deed clearly indicated that the purchaser, as a
tenant, is already in possession for 2790 sq.ft., of the schedule
mentioned property, as per the rental agreement dated 11.03.1992 and
he shall continue to occupy, possess and enjoy the same, therefore, the
plaintiff was not given possession of the entire property and he has
given possession only in respect of the tenanted property to an extent
of 2790 sq.ft., therefore, the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the
entire property and his possession is unlawful except the tenancy
property of 2790 sq.ft., Thus the issues are answered.
15. Answers for Issue Nos.(vii): Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
the decree for specific performance?
(i) The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of
contract based on the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
agreement was also admitted by the defendants. The defendants also
admitted the receipt of advance amount. But according to the plaintiff,
he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the
defendants denied the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, this
Court in the previous issues based on the evidence and documents
decided that the plaintiff was not always ready and willingness to
perform his part of contract.
(ii) The plaintiff admitted that the defendants have no right to
sell the property and as per the settlement, they have given only the life
interest and their heirs are alone entitled to the property after the life
time. The said copies of settlement deeds have been marked as
Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17 and those documents clearly revealed that the settlor
settled the properties through settlement deeds by giving life interest to
his sons and the children of the settlor have to enjoy the properties after
the life time of Dhanasekaran, Dhananjayan and Saravanaperumal.
Therefore, it is admitted that the defendants are not entitled to enter into
sale agreement in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
knowing the rights of the defendants entered into sale agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of contract
as against the defendants in respect of the suit property.
(iii) It is well settled law that as far as the relief of specific
performance is concerned, the plaintiff has to prove that he has been
always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but plaintiff
failed to prove his readiness and willingness. The agreement was
entered with the life interest holders and on the date of agreement, the
parties are not absolute owners of the properties thereby the said
agreement cannot be enforced. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for
specific performance of contract. Moreover, the plaintiff entered into
agreements frequently and failed to perform his part of contract on
earlier occasions. The above said conduct also dis-entitle him from the
relief of specific performance of contract. Thus the issue is answered.
16. Answers for Issue No.(viii) :Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
the relief of permanent injunctions as prayed?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
(i) The plaintiff sought for relief in the suit for permanent injunction
restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property and restraining the
defendants from alienating the suit property to the third parties in the
suit. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the property
through tenancy to an extent of 2790 sq. ft., and for the remaining
extent he is in unlawful occupation. Therefore, as far as the tenancy
property is concerned, the plaintiff is in lawful possession and as far as
the remaining property is concerned, he is a tress-passer, therefore, the
plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of
the entire property.
(ii) As far as the relief of permanent injunction from alienating the
property is concerned, the plaintiff admitted that all the defendants are
not the absolute owners of the property and the executors of the
agreement are only life interest holders. The plaintiff was not ready and
willing to perform his part of contract and therefore, he is not entitled for
the relief of specific performance of contract and the defendants being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
right holders of the property, are entitled to alienate and encumber the
property, according to their rights. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled
to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of alienating the property,
thus the issue is answered.
17. Answers to Issue No.(x) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation and to what other relief? If any.
The defendants have taken a plea that the suit is barred by
limitation, as per the agreement. The date of agreement is dated
07.05.2018 and the period of contract is 10 months, therefore, the time
starts after a period of 10 months from the date of agreement. As far as
specific performance is concerned, the limitation period is three years,
when the time is mentioned in the agreement. In this case, time of 10
months has been mentioned, therefore, after lapse of 10 months, the
suit ought to have been filed within a period three years. In this case,
the suit is filed well within the period of limitation. Therefore, the
contention that the suit is barred by limitation is not acceptable. Thus
the issue is answered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
18. In view of above said detailed discussions, this Court is of the
opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance of
contract, however, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,15,42,500/- towards
advance of the sale price. The defendants also admitted the receipt of
amounts and they are also ready to repay the said amount. Therefore,
there is no bar to direct the defendants to repay the advance amount. It
is true that as per Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has to
grant alternative relief on specific prayer and at any time, the Court can
permit for amendment. Already plaintiff also filed an application and the
same was dismissed that is now under challenge. This Court has
dismissed the said application on a different context. Since the
defendants themselves admitted the receipt of advance amount and
ready to repay the amount, in the absence of any prayer for refund of
advance, under equity, the Court can grant Money Decree. This
position was already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Srinivas Ramkumar Firm Vs. Mahabir Prasad & Others [1951 SCC
Online SC11].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
19. There is no doubt that as far as specific performance is
concerned, it is discretionary and equitable relief and when the
defendants themselves admitted the receipt of advance and ready to
repay the amount, this Court can safely grant the relief of money decree
to the plaintiff based on the admissions under equity, therefore, this
Court is inclined to pass Money Decree in favour of the plaintiff for the
admitted money of Rs.1,15,42,500/- Though the defendants have
admitted to pay the advance amount, the plaintiff is not entitled to
interest for that amount, since he is enjoying the suit property based on
that agreement.
In the result, the present Suit is dismissed in respect of relief of
Specific Performance and Money Decree is granted in favour of the
plaintiff by directing the defendants to repay the advance amount of
Rs.1,15,42,500/- [One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Forty Two thousand and
Five Hundred only] within a period of two months from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
receipt of copy of this Judgment, failing which, the said amount shall
carry 9% interest from the date of Judgment. Consequently, connected
applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.11.2025
Index:Yes/No;
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Nonspeaking Judgment
ssd
1) List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-
1.P.W.1 – Mr.John Venkatesan
2.P.W.2 - Mr.Paul Gunaseelan
2) List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-
Exhibits Date Description
Ex.P.1 11.03.1992 Photocopy of tenancy agreement between the
st
plaintiff and the 1 defendant
Ex.P.2 07.05.2018 Original sale agreement between the plaintiff
and defendants in respect of the suit property
registered before the Sub Registrar,
Purasaiwakkam
Ex.P.3 20.10.2021 The original CSR copy issued by the police
Ex.P.4 11.12.2021 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the
plaintiff’s counsel to the defendants along with
postal receipts.
Ex.P.5 14.12.2021 Original acknowledgment cares of defendats 1
to 8
Ex.P.6 - Original electricity charges card issued by the
TANGEDCO
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
Ex.P.7 17.12.2021 The printout of the FIR along with 65B affidavit
Ex.P.8 17.12.2021 The printout of the encumbrance certificate in
respect of suit property along with 65B
affidavit
th
Ex.P.9 21.12.2021 The printout of the tracking report of 9 and
th
10 defendants along with 65B affidavit
Ex.P.10 13.12.2021 Original EB receipt nos.6647168 and 6350413
21.06.2021
Ex.P.11 25.03.2002 Original Trust Deed
Ex.P.12 - Certified copy of the statement of account
issued by the bank authorities for the period
from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017
Ex.P.13 15.12.2021 Certified copy of the Power of Attorney
executed by all the defendants in favour of
myself and Arul John Bosco
Ex.P.14 - Certified copy of the Settlement deed
registered as Doc.No.1377/1980 before the
SRO, Purasaiwalkam executed by my father in
favour of Dhasaradhan
Ex.P.15 - The certified copy of the settlement deed
registered as Doc.No.1377/1980 before the
SRO, Purasaiwalkam executed by father in
favour of Dhananjayan
Ex.P.16 - Certified copy of settlement deed registered as
Doc.No.1376/1980 before the SRO,
Purasaiwalkam executed by father in favour of
Dhasaradhan
Ex.P.17 - Certified copy of the settlement deed
registered as Doc.No.1389 /1980 before the
SRO, Pursaiwalkam executed by my father in
favour of Saravana Perumal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
3)List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendant:-
D.W.1 – Mr.K.Dhanasekaran
4)List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendants:-
Exhibit Date Description
Ex.D.1 11.03.2010 Original Agreement for sale
Ex.D.2 26.02.2018 Original MOU
Ex.D.3 25.01.2019 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the
defendant to the plaintiff along with the
acknowledgment
Ex.D.4 13.6.2011 Letter written by PW1 on behalf of the plaintiff
to the then advocate of the defendants,
Mr.Chandrasekaran
Ex.D.5 23.12.2021 Office copy of the notice along with
acknowledgment card
Ex.D.6 April, 2014 The Original joint venture agreement executed
in April 2014 by the defendants with M/s GKP
Builders for the suit schedule property
Ex.D.7 07.03.2018 The original deed of cancellation
Ex.D.8 06.11.2017 Office copy of the legal notice sent by
defendants 1, 3 and 6 to the plaintiff.
24.11.2025
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
O.S.Section,
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
ssd
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:03:28 pm )
