High Court · 2025

SA No. 235 of 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANSA No. 235 of 2010andM.P.No.1 of 20101. R.VasanthaAppellant(s)Vs1. Leelavathi (Died)2.Kanchana3.Maniammal4.Pachaiammal5.Ravi6.Saravanamoorthi(RR5 & 6 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R1 vide Order dated 14.12.2021)Respondent(s)For Appellant(s):Mr.C.MunusamyFor Respondent(s):M/s R.T.Sundari for RR2 to 6R1- Died https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010ORDERThe plaintiff in O.S.No.866 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at Vellore is the appellant herein.2. O.S.No.866 of 2005 had been filed by the appellant viz., R.Vasantha, seeking a direction against the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in default, through the process of Court and to direct the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. The suit property is the backyard vacant site of the house at Old Door No.1/12, New Door No.239, Perumal Koil Street, Virupakshipuram at Vellore District.3. The plaintiff was the adjoining land owner of the defendants. The 1st , 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sisters and the 4th defendant is their sister-in-law/wife of deceased brother. The defendants were in possession of the house and also of the backyard vacant site. The plaintiff had claimed that there was an oral agreement to sell both the house and the backyard vacant site. The defendants had appointed one Kasthuri Ammal as Power of Attorney Agent. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010Power of Attorney Agent had sold the house property to the plaintiff by executing a Sale deed dated 05.05.2005. Before the Agent could execute the sale deed with respect to the backyard portion, the defendants cancelled the Power of Attorney. They did not come forward to honour the agreement. They had however issued a receipt, which had been marked as Ex.A1 which was dated 19.09.1996 that they had received a total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-. Under those circumstances, the suit had been filed seeking execution of sale deed with respect to the backyard portion.4. In the written statement, it had been claimed that the property was divisible into 5 shares and that it was still undivided. It had therefore been stated that the Power of Attorney did not have authority to execute the sale deed with respect to each share of the vacant land, which was the suit schedule property. However, the house being composite, a sale deed had been executed on 05.05.2005.5.On the basis of those pleadings, the learned Additional District Munsif https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010Judge at Vellore had framed the issues relating to the specific performance and for possession but the issue on limitation had not been framed.6. The learned Trial Judge had examined Ex.A1, which was a composite receipt for Rs. 45,000/- paid towards the purchase of both the house and the backyard portion, which constituted the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Munsif Judge also examined Ex.A3, which was the Sale deed in favour of the appellant with respect to the house portion. Holding that, there was no justification not to execute the sale deed with respect to the backyard portion, the suit was decreed. 7. The defendants, then filed A.S.No.65 of 2008 before the Sub Court at Vellore. The learned Sub Judge, however had taken a divergent view and stated that there was no specific agreement for both the house and the backyard portion. Even in the plaint, it had been stated that it was only an oral agreement. It had been observed by the First Appellate Court that the sale deed had been executed for the house portion and even under Ex.A3, the sale consideration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010was shown as Rs.45,000/- and that, it covered the amount shown in the receipt and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek separate relief with respect to the backyard portion. It had been observed that there were two separate considerations agreed for the house and for the backyard portion. The appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.8. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial question of law.“Whether the First Appellate Court is correct in negativing the claim of the appellant over the vacant land notwithstanding the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A3 and A8, which proves the right of the appellant and when there is a finding that the respondents/defendants have admitted the document, Ex.A1?”9. Heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 201010. The appellant had filed the suit seeking specific performance of the backyard of the house portion, where the respondent resided. The main document relied on by the appellant is Ex.A1, which is a receipt executed for receiving a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards intending sale of both the house and the backyard portion. The respondents had appointed a Power of Attorney. The Power of Attorney executed a sale deed, which had been marked as Ex.A3 dated 05.05.2005, for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- but the schedule was only the house portion. It is therefore evident that the sale consideration covered only the house portion not the backyard portion. Additionally, the plaint had been presented on 03.10.2005. Ex.A1 was dated 19.09.1996. There was no consensus ad idem between the parties, and hence, no valid agreement was extended into. The receipt had been unilaterally issued by the respondents. Though, it is claimed that it covered the consideration for the house and the backyard portion, Ex.A3, Sale deed was also for total consideration of Rs.45,000/- but only for the house portion.11. Therefore, it is evident that the sale consideration covered only the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010house and Ex.A1 which was a receipt could not have any further value. The issue of limitation had not been examined by the Trial Court. There were no issues framed on that aspect. The respondent continued to be in possession of the backyard portion. It was also divisible in shares of 5 each. I hold that the First Appellate Court had properly appreciated that Ex.A1 would not have any effect so far as the backyard portion is concerned and had correctly interpreted that the total consideration was Rs.45,000/- which is the sale consideration reflected under Ex.A3- sale deed dated 05.05.2005. The admission by the respondents of Ex.A1 would have no effect, since the suit itself is barred by limitation. The appellant has to be satisfied with the sale deed in her favour with respect to the house portion.12. The substantial question of law is answered that the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the documents presented. The Second Appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to apply for return of Ex.A3, before the Trial Court by substituting a copy. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 201013. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.18-07-2025ssiIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010To:1. The Sub Judge, Vellore.2.The District Munsif, Vellore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 235 of 2010 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.ssiSA No.235 of 2010 18-07-2025