Madras High Court

R.Dechinamurthy Pillai (Died) vs R.Singaravelu on 12 September, 2025

                                                             1/14                       AS No. 808 of 2008



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 12-09-2025

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

                                             AS No. 808 of 2008
                1. R.Dechinamurthy Pillai (Died)

                2. Sidambarame @ Ravi

                3. Tilecannou

                4. Mourouganandame

                5. Coumaravelou

                6. Badmavady

                7. Minatchy

                8. Vasudevan
                Appellants 2 to 8 brought into record as
                the LRs of the deceased sole Appellant
                viz., (R.Dechinamurthy Pillai), vide
                court order dated 17.02.2022, made in
                MP.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 in AS.No.808.2008.                               Appellant(s)
                                                       Vs
                R.Singaravelu
                                                                Respondent(s)
                PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC read with Order 44 Rule

                1 of CPC to a) grant leave to the appellant to file the First Appeal, against the



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )
                                                                2/14                      AS No. 808 of 2008


                judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007 in O.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the

                Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal as a pauper; b) to set aside

                the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2007 in OS No.11 of 2007 on the file of

                the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal and to grant such other

                relief or relieves as this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and

                circumstances of the case.

                                  For Appellant(s):       Mr. R. Selvakumar

                                  For Respondent(s):      Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar,
                                                          Legal Aid Counsel

                                                        JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. The respondent is the

plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated

26.05.2004. The trial Court granted the main relief of specific performance.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come by way of this appeal.

2.According to the respondent, appellant is the owner of the agreement

mentioned property and he entered into an agreement of sale on 26.05.2004

under Ex.A2, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of

Rs.8,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, an advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- was paid by the respondent on the date of the agreement and he

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

agreed to pay another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 09.06.2004. The

remaining sale consideration shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant on

production of the title documents, especially, the exchange deed relating to 12

Kuzhies of the agreement mentioned property. It was also agreed that the

appellant shall produce the Encumbrance Certificate from 01.01.1990 till the

execution of the sale deed. The appellant also agreed to keep the vacant

possession of the agreement mentioned property by removing the occupiers.

The time for conclusion of the sale was fixed as one year. It is the further case

of the respondent that he paid an initial amount of Rs.50,000/- on the date of

agreement itself and second installment of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid only on

29.07.2004 instead of 09.06.2004 as agreed, due to the absence of the appellant.

The payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by the respondent to the appellant was endorsed

by the appellant in the back side of the sale agreement. It is further stated in the

plaint that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 24.11.2004 and

28.01.2005 to the appellant and those two payments were also duly endorsed by

the appellant in the back side of the sale agreement. Even after the payment of

nearly half of the sale consideration, the appellant failed to produce the title

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

documents, namely, exchange deed, as per the terms of the agreement along

with the other revenue documents. The appellant sent a lawyer notice on

06.12.2005 to the father of the respondent informing that the agreement was

valid only for one year and he decided to sell the property to the third parties.

Then a reply notice was sent by the respondent to the appellant on 01.02.2006,

mentioning the default on the part of the appellant in producing the title

document, which is the reason for the delay in completing the sale transaction.

In response to the reply notice, the appellant sent a rejoinder on 10.02.2006

under Ex.A5. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice on 27.02.2007 and then

laid a suit for specific performance on 19.04.2007.

3.The appellant filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the

ground that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract and he failed to complete the sale transaction within the time stipulated

in the agreement. It is further stated that time for completing sale transaction

expired on 26.05.2005 and the respondent filed the suit only on 19.04.2007 and

therefore, he was not entitled to specific performance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

4.Based on the above said pleadings, the trial Court formulated the

following issues:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the consideration is reflecting the

prevailing market value?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing

to perform his part till he filed the suit and

continues to be ready?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get

24% interest for the refund money alternatively?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

relief of specific performance as prayed for?

(vi) What is the relief to the parties?

5.Before the trial Court, the power agent of the plaintiff, who happened to

be his paternal uncle was examined as PW1 and on behalf of the plaintiff, eight

documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A8. The defendant was examined as

DW1 and on his behalf, four documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B4.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

6.The trial Court on appreciation of the materials available on record

came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established his readiness and

willingness to perform his part of the contract and decreed the suit for the main

relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful

defendant/appellant has filed the appeal.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently

contend that though the time for completing the sale transaction expired on

26.05.2005, the suit was filed by the plaintiff only on 19.4.2007, which is nearly

after two years and therefore, the trial Court committed a serious error in

coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his

part of the contract. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff did

not enter the witness box and only his power agent, who had no personal

knowledge about the suit transaction was examined as PW1. In this

circumstances, the trial Court committed an error in accepting his case and

decreeing the suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

8.I also heard Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, Court appointed Legal Aid Counsel

for the respondent, who made submission in support of the trial Court

Judgment.

9.Based on the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the

learned counsel for either side, the following points arise for consideration in

this appeal.

(i)Whether the respondent/plaintiff

established his continuous readiness and

willingness to perform his part of the agreement?

(ii)Whether the trial Court was justified in

granting the decree for specific performance as

prayed for?

10.A close reading of Ex.A2 sale agreement would establish that the

agreed sale consideration was Rs.8,00,000/- and the initial payment of

Rs.50,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement itself. As per the

endorsement made in the back side of the first page of the sale agreement, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 29.07.2004, Rs.1,00,000/- on

24.11.2004 and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.01.2005. All these

payments were properly endorsed by the defendant in the back side of the first

page of the sale agreement. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel

for the appellant that as per the terms of the agreement, second instalments of

Rs.1,50,000/- should have been paid on or before 09.06.2004, but the plaintiff

had paid the said amount only on 29.07.2004. Therefore, according to him, the

readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is verymuch doubtful. Though there is

a clause in the agreement that Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid on or before

09.06.2004, the plaintiff failed to pay the said amount and paid the amount only

on 29.04.2004 and the same was readily accepted by the defendant and an

endorsement was made without any reservation. Therefore, it is clear that the

parties never intended to treat the time fixed in the contract as the essence of the

contract. Subsequently, two more instalments were paid by the plaintiff on

24.11.2004 and 28.01.2005. It is clearly mentioned in the sale agreement that

before the payment of the entire sale consideration, the defendant shall produce

the title documents, especially, the exchange deed pertaining to 12 Kuzhies and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

the revenue documents pertaining to the agreement mentioned property.

However, absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to show that the

defendant had produced exchange deed for 12 Kuzhies as agreed in the

agreement. In fact, the appellant who was examined as DW1 in his evidence

had clearly admitted that inspite of notice issued by the plaintiff, he failed to

produce the exchange deed as the same was not available. He also admitted that

in his rejoinder to the reply notice issued by the plaintiff, which was marked as

Ex.A5, he did not mention about the non availability of the exchange deed. The

relevant portion of DW1's evidence reads as follows:

capy; jtpu ghpth;j;jid gj;jpug;go 12 FHp brhe;jk; vd;W xg;ge;jj;jpy;

                                  brhy;ypa[s;sJ         ghpth;j;jidf;F                   gj;jpuk;
                                  ,y;iy/                    v';fs;                ghl;ldhUk;
                                  rp';fhuntY        ghl;ldhUk;               tha;bkhHpahf
                                  khw;wpbfhz;lhh;fs;/             vd; jug;gpy; u";rpj;
                                  bfhLj;j nehl;O!py; ghpth;j;jidg;go 12
                                  FHp    brhe;jk;      vd;W         brhy;ypapUf;fnwd;/
                                  v/4apy;       ghpth;j;jid                       gj;jpuj;jpy;
                                  nfl;L,Uf;fpwhh;fs;                             ,y;yhjjhy;
                                  xg;gilf;ftpy;iy/                 v/5apy;         nehl;O!py;
                                  ghpth;j;jidf;F          gj;jpuk;          ,y;iy          vd;W


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )


                                  brhy;ytpy;iy/                 v/6.        kw;Wk;      7apy;
                                  ghpth;j;jid;F        gj;jpuk;           ,y;iy         vd;W
                                  brhy;ytpy;iy/

11.Ex.A3 is the Advocate notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff

on 06.12.2005. In response to the same, the plaintiff issued a reply notice on

01.02.2006, wherein, he clearly mentioned that the defendant failed to produce

the documents as agreed in the sale agreement. The defendant was called upon

to produce the documents and receive the balance sale consideration and

complete the sale transaction. However, the defendant issued a rejoinder on

10.02.2006, reiterating his earlier averments mentioned in his legal notice dated

06.12.2005. In the rejoinder, the defendant did not mention about the non

availability of the exchange deed. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant failed

to perform his part of the contract by producing the exchange deed of the

agreement property relating to 12 Kuzhies and other revenue documents. Since

the defendant committed default in complying his obligation under the

agreement, there was a delay on the part of the plaintiff in completing the sale

transaction. After waiting for some time, the plaintiff issued a notice on

27.02.2007 and then filed a suit for specific performance on 19.04.2007. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

defendant who agreed to produce the title documents, namely, the exchange

deed for the 12 Kuzhies of the agreement property, during the course of Trial

admitted that he did not possess any exchange deed as mentioned in the suit

agreement. Therefore, the delay in completing the sale transantion is

attributable to the misrepresentation made by the defendant in the suit sale

agreement and the default in performing his part of the agreement.

12.In view of the discussions made earlier, the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff failed to prove the continuous

readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is not acceptable by

this Court. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the respondent and

against the appellant.

13.As far as the genuineness of the sale agreement is concerned, there is

no dispute. It is admitted by both parties. The defendant also admitted that he

received Rs.4,00,000/- in four instalments from the plaintiff. In these

circumstances, the plaintiff proved his continuous readiness and willingess in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:06 am )

performing his part of the contract and the delay in completing the sale

transaction is only due to the default on the part of the defendant in his failure to

produce the exchange deed as agreed in the suit sale agreement.

14.I do not find any error in the findings given by the trial Court and

decreeing the suit for the main relief of specific performance. Accordingly, both

points taken up for consideration in this appeal are answered in favour of the

respondent and against the appellant. The appeal suit stands dismissed by

confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.