Madras High Court
R. Pushpavaathi vs Yellappa on 17 October, 2025
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 12.08.2025
Pronounced on 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.3500 of 2021
R. Pushpavaathi ...Appellant in both the appeals
Vs.
Yellappa
S/o. Muthan * ... Respondent in both the appeals
(* Son in law of Muthan. Cause title amended vide court order dated
19.9.2024 made in C.M.P. No.20904/2024 in S.A. Nos. 172 & 173/2021)
Prayer in S.A. No.172 of 2021 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100
CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 21.09.2020 made in
A.S. No.39 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Hosur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2019
made in O.S. No.18 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
Prayer in S.A. No.173 of 2021 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100
CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 21.09.2020 made in
A.S. No.40 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Hosur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2019
made in O.S. No.21 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.
For Appellant : Mr. G. Prakash
for Mr. J.Enoch Charles
in both the appeals
For Respondent : Mr. P. Mani in both the appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S. No.18 of 2011 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai, has filed the
present second appeals challenging the decree and judgment dated
21.09.2020 made in A.S. No.39 of 2019 and in A.S. No.40 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 16.08.2019 made in O.S. No.18 of 2011and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
O.S. No.21 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in O.S. No.18 of 2011.
3. The case of the plaintiff, namely R.Pushpavathi, in O.S. No.18
of 2011 is that, the lands in survey number 1633/1 of Sandanapalli
Village to an extent of 1.97 acres originally belonged to one Sudakaran
by virtue of patta. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from
Sudakaran through a sale deed dated 03.02.1981 and ever since the date
of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit
property. Therefore, the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Denkanikottai, has
passed an order to transfer the patta on 17.07.1997 in favour of the
plaintiff in respect to the suit property. Thus, the patta relates to the suit
property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
residing at Bangalore and she often come to Sandanapally village to
perform agricultural operation. One Muthan was serving as farm servant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
of the plaintiff and presently he is not serving as farm servant under the
plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is personally cultivating the suit
property as her own will and wish. The defendant is the stranger to the
suit property and it seems to be that the defendant is the son-in-law of
Muthan. The plaintiff is permanently residing at Bangalore and taking
advantage of the absence of the plaintiff in the suit village, the defendant
is claiming possession over the suit property. On 25.12.2010 the
defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property and the same was
prevented by the plaintiff with the help of neighbours. Hence, the
plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for declaration of title
and consequential relief of permanent injunction.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the husband
of the plaintiff, namely Ramasamy, has purchased the suit property and it
was registered in the name of the plaintiff. It is false to state that his
father-in-law Muthan was the farm servant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
knew that the father-in-law of the defendant was in possession of the suit
property and after his demise the defendant is in possession of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
property. After the purchase of the suit lands, the plaintiff and her
husband were residing at Bangalore and they handed over the suit
property to the father-in-law of the defendant to do agricultural works.
The plaintiff and her husband had given some shares in the mahasools
got from the suit property to the father-in-law of the defendant. Once or
twice in a year the plaintiff and her husband used to come and meet the
Muthan for getting mahasools. The father-in-law of the defendant
constructed a house in the suit property and was residing along with the
defendant. From 03.02.1981 the defendant and his father-in-law are in
actual possession of the suit property. In the year 1987, the plaintiff and
her husband offered to sell the suit property to Muthan for a sum of
Rs.9,000/- and started to receive the sale consideration from Muthan in
installments. For receipt of such amount from Muthan, the plaintiff and
her husband used to write letters to one T.Ranganath who was a mediator
for selling the suit property. The said Muthan has paid a sum of
Rs.8,100/- in total to the plaintiff and he died leaving behind his daughter
and the defendant and they are in possession of the suit property by
constructing a house therein. The body of the Muthan was buried in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
suit lands. The husband of the plaintiff died 8 years ago and the plaintiff
did not contact the defendant thereafter. Therefore, the defendant
approached the plaintiff at Bangalore and demanded to execute the sale
deed. But, the plaintiff wants to sell the suit property for more price. On
15.09.2008 the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant
for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and received the entire sale consideration and
executed the sale agreement on the same day. The plaintiff handed over
the original sale deed to the defendant on the date of sale agreement. The
defendant is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
But, the plaintiff is postponing the execution of sale deed. Therefore, on
12.12.2011 the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff calling upon her
to execute the sale deed. Even after the receipt of the notice, the plaintiff
did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the defendant
filed a suit in O.S. No.21 of 2012 for specific performance of contract
against the plaintiff. There is no merit in the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and for
allowing the suit filed by him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
5. Since the parties to the proceedings, suit property in issue and
issues between the parties are same, the trial court conducted a joint trial
and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, vide its order
dated 16.08.2019, partly allowed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff
in O.S. No.18/2011 by declaring the appellant/plaintiff as the lawful
owner and title holder in respect of the suit property and dismissed the
suit in respect of prayer for permanent injunction. In the suit filed by the
respondent, namely Yellappa, in O.S. No.21/2012, the trial court directed
the appellant, namely Pushpavathi, to execute the sale deed in favour of
the respondent, namely Yellappa, in respect of the suit property as per
the terms and conditions in the sale agreement dated 15.09.2008 within
two months from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the
present second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff in
O.S.No.18/2021.
6. S.A. No.173 of 2021 has been admitted on the following
substantial question of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
(a) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was in error in
confirming the the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
by wrongly misreading the oral evidence of appellant (PW1)
that the "Appellant has accepted her signature in Exhibit
B1", when the appellant had clearly denied the signature
and content in Exhibit B1 during the cross-examination of
the appellant (PW1).
7. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.18/2011 and defendant
in O.S. No.21/2012, on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate of Denkanikottai. The learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the lands in S.No.1633/1 to an extent of 1.97 acres
exclusively belongs to the appellant and she is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase. Patta was also
transferred in the name of the appellant on 17.07.1997 and all the
revenue records stands in the name of the appellant. The respondent
failed to establish his possession in the suit property. The respondent is
claiming possession over the suit property based on Ex.B1 sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
agreement which is a fabricated document. The appellant do not accept
her signature in Ex.B1 sale agreement. The suit filed by the respondent in
O.S. No.21/2012 for the relief of specific performance is barred by
limitation and after thought. His further contention is that, even in the
written statement filed by the respondent in O.S.No.18/2011, he has
clearly admitted that one Muthan was paying only the mahasool share to
the plaintiff's husband. The claim of the respondent that he had perfected
title over the suit property by adverse possession is unsustainable, since
he had filed a suit for specific performance. The respondent is a total
stranger to the suit property. The appellant/plaintiff has established her
title and possession in the suit property by marking Ex.A2 to Ex.A17 and
Ex.X1 to Ex.X8. Since the said Muthan was buried in the suit property, it
cannot be presumed that the possession of the property is with the
respondent/defendant. It is further contended that the original sale deed
03.02.1981 in favour of the appellant was handed over to the
respondent/defendant by her husband who led a wayward life. The courts
below failed to note the fact that Ex.B1 sale agreement is a fabricated
document and erroneously concluded that the appellant has accepted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
signature in the said document without proper appreciation of the
evidence deposed by the appellant. No attempt was made by the
respondent to prove the signature found in Ex.B1 sale agreement belong
to the appellant/plaintiff by sending the same for expert opinion. It is
further submitted that the courts below failed to consider that the suit
land measuring 1.97 acres could not have been agreed to sell for a
meagre amount of Rs.40,000/-, when the guideline value of the said
property at the relevant period was more than Rs.15,00,000/- and the
market value was more than Rs.40,00,000/-. The courts below were
carried away with the contents of Ex.B8 and Ex.B18 in spite of
categorical denial by the appellant about the contents, handwriting and
signatures in the above documents. Hence, prayed for setting aside the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.39/2019 and A.S.No.39/2019
dated 21.09.2020 passed by the first appellate court confirming the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.18 of 2011 and in O.S.
No.21/2012 passed by the trial court on 16.08.2019. The learned counsel
further submitted that the suit is barred by limitation since the defendant
failed to file the suit within a period of three years from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
agreement. He would further contend that in suits for specific
performance, courts cannot ignore timelines prescribed by parties. In the
present case, specific time has been fixed for execution of sale deed and
hence, time is essence of sale agreement. To support his contentions, he
has relied upon the following judgments:
i. Saradamani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi &
others reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3234
ii. A.L. Deivanathan and another vs. R. Saravanan
and others reported in 2024(4) CTC 434
8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the suit property originally belonged to one
Sudhakaran. It is not true that the plaintiff has purchased the suit
property from the said Sudhakaran on 03.02.1981. In fact, the husband
of the plaintiff namely Ramasamy actually purchased the property and it
was registered in the name of the plaintiff. He would further submit that
it is not true that one Muthan was a farm servant of the plaintiff. In fact,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
he is the father-in-law of the defendant and was in possession of the suit
property. After his demise the defendant is in possession of the suit
property. The plaintiff and her husband were residing in Bangalore and
they have handed over the suit property to the father-in-law of the
defendant to do agricultural work. The plaintiff and her husband used to
give shares in the mahasool yielded from the suit property to the father-
in-law of the defendant. The father-in-law of the defendant has
constructed a house in the suit property and was residing there along with
the defendant. Hence, from 03.02.1981, the defendant and his father-in-
law were in actual possession over the suit property. While so, in the
year 1987, the plaintiff and her husband offered to sell the suit property
to the father-in-law of the defendant for a sum of Rs.9,000/- and started
to receive the sale consideration from him in installments. The plaintiff
and her husband used to write letters to one Ranganath, who was a
mediator for selling the suit property in this regard. The father-in-law of
the defendant has paid a total sum of Rs.8,100/- to the plaintiff till his
demise. After the demise of his father in law the defendant is in
possession of the suit property. The body of his father-in-law was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
burried in the suit lands. After the demise of her husband, the plaintiff
stopped coming to meet the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant went to
Bangalore and met the plaintiff, requested to execute a sale deed in
respect of the suit property. At that time, the plaintiff demanded more
amount. On 15.09.2008, the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property to
the defendant for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and received the entire sale
consideration and executed the sale agreement on 15.09.2008. The
plaintiff handed over the original sale deed to the defendant on the same
day. Though the defendant was always ready and willing to perform his
part of contract, the plaintiff was postponing the execution of the sale
deed. On 12.12.2011, the defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff
demanding execution of the sale deed. Even after receipt of the notice,
the plaintiff failed to execute the sale deed. Hence he was constrained to
file a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No.21/2012. The
courts below having appreciated the materials on record, partly allowed
the suit in O.S. No.18/2011 and directed the plaintiff to execute a sale
deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property within a
period of two months from the date of judgment which calls for any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
interference by this court.
9. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
10. The appellant/plaintiff in O.S. No.18/2011 has filed the above
suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the
defendant. The respondent/defendant in O.S. No.18/2011 has filed a suit
in O.S. No.21/2012 for the relief of specific performance in respect of the
suit property against the plaintiff in O.S. No.18/2011. It is not in dispute
that the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff Pushpavathy
under sale deed dated 03.02.1981 marked as Ex.A1. Now the dispute is
whether the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the
defendant. The alleged sale agreement is marked as Ex.B1 on the side of
the defendant. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff, that the father-
in-law of the defendant namely Muthan was a farm servant and he used
to get only the shares in the mahasool till his life time for doing
agricultural work in the suit land. The further contention of the plaintiff
is that neither the plaintiff nor her husband agreed to sell the suit land to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
the said Muthan or to the defendant. The alleged sale agreement is a
forged document fabricated for the purpose of the case. The
appellant/plaintiff would submit that she is alone in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property and that the respondent/defendant is a
stranger illegally claiming false possession over the suit property. The
respondent/defendant do not have any title or possession in the suit
property. Since the appellant/plaintiff is an aged widow and permanently
residing in Bangalore, taking advantage of the same, the defendant is
trying to grab the suit property from the plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff
has also produced the kists receipts and computer chitta in her name
marked as Ex.A5, and A6 to establish her title in the suit property. The
defendant has also not disputed the title of the plaintiff in the suit
property. His contention is that he was put into possession of the suit
property by virtue of Ex.B1 sale agreement. Hence, the courts below
have rightly concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration of title over the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
11. The respondent/defendant has filed the suit in O.S. No.21/2012
for the relief of specific performance of contract based on Ex.B1 sale
agreement. It is the specific contention of the respondent/defendant that
on 15.09.2008 the plaintiff, having received the entire sale consideration
of Rs.40,000/-, executed the sale agreement and handed over the
possession of the suit property to the defendant. Further the defendant
would contend that in the year 1987, the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit
property to his father-in-law Muthan for a sum of Rs.9,000/- and were
receiving the sale consideration in installments from his father in law. To
support his contention, he has relied upon the letters marked as Ex.B8 to
B18 respectively. The appellant/plaintiff failed to rebut the same by
concrete evidence. The respondent/defendant has also relied upon Ex.B1
sale agreement to prove the existence of oral sale agreement between his
father-in-law Muthan and the plaintiff. On a perusal of the recitals in
Ex.B1, it is made clear that the appellant/plaintiff not only admitted
existence of oral sale agreement between herself and Muthan but also
admitted passing of total sale consideration of Rs.8,100/- from Muthan.
Though the appellant/plaintiff denied the execution of Ex.B1 sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
agreement dated 15.09.2008 and that she never handed over the
possession of the suit property either to the father-in-law of the defendant
or to the defendant, failed to prove the same. She has not taken any steps
to disprove her signature in Ex.B1 sale agreement. Moreover, the title
document is in the custody of the defendant. Though the
appellant/plaintiff would contend that the title document was handed
over by her husband to the respondent/defendant, who was leading a
wayward life, the same was neither pleaded nor established by her. On
the other hand, the respondent/defendant has established the execution of
Ex.B1 sale agreement by examining the attestors of the document as
D.W.2 and D.W.3. They have categorically deposed about the execution
of the sale agreement and receipt of sale consideration. In the cross
examination, the evidences of the above witnesses were not discredited
by the plaintiff. Therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded.
12. With regard to the possession of the suit property, the
defendant has produced Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 and Ex.B19 to Ex.B22
respectively. Moreover, the recitals in Ex.B1 sale agreement is crystal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
clear that the possession was handed over to the defendant on the same
day. Since no timeline was fixed in the sale agreement for execution of
sale deed, it cannot be construed that time is essence of contract and the
suit filed by the respondent/defendant is barred by limitation.
Furthermore, the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish that there is
manipulation of document. The judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant/plaintiff with regard to time is essence of
contract, limitation and manipulation is not applicable to the present facts
of the case. Hence, the courts below have rightly concluded that the
appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the
defendant is entitled to the relief of enforcement of specific performance
of contract and rightly directed the appellant/plaintiff to execute a sale
deed in favour of the defendant as per Ex.B1 sale agreement within the
stipulated time. No infirmity or perversity found in the above findings of
the courts below, which warrants interference by this Court. Therefore, I
do not see any question of law much less a substantial question of law in
order to enable me to entertain these appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
13. In the result,
i. The second appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The common judgment and decree dated 21.09.2020 made in
A.S. No.39 of 2019 and A.S. No.40 of 2019 on the file of the
learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 16.08.2019 made in O.S. No.18 of
2011and O.S. No.21 of 2012 on the file of the learned District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, is upheld.
17.10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre-delivery common judgment in
S.A.Nos.172 & 173 of 2021 and
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
