Madrasdated High Court · 2025

2/14AS No. 808 of 2008judgment 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. SelvakumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, Legal Aid CounselJUDGMENTThe 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 3/14AS No. 808 of 2008agreed 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 4/14AS No. 808 of 2008documents, 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 5/14AS No. 808 of 20084.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 6/14AS No. 808 of 20086.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 7/14AS No. 808 of 20088.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 8/14AS No. 808 of 2008plaintiff 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 9/14AS No. 808 of 2008the 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 10/14AS No. 808 of 2008brhy;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 11/14AS No. 808 of 2008defendant 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 12/14AS No. 808 of 2008performing 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. 15.In the result, the appeal suit stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is also closed.12-09-2025sliIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/14AS No. 808 of 2008ToThe Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/14AS No. 808 of 2008S.SOUNTHAR J.sliAS No. 808 of 2008 12-09-2025