Madrasdated High Court · 2025

A.S.No.280 of 2014For Appellants: Mr.N.Krishna Kumarfor M/s.Sarvabhauman AssociatesFor Respondents 1 & 2: Ms.M.Saranya for M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents 3 to 5: Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja J U D G M E N T The unsuccessful 1st defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit is for specific performance of contract filed by respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant has come before this Court by way of this appeal.2. According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, the suit property belongs to the appellant/1st defendant. He along with six other neighbouring land owners executed a general power of attorney in favour of defendants 2 to 4 on 25.09.1996 appointing them as power agent to deal with their properties including the agreement mentioned property. Pursuant to the said power, the defendants 2 to 4 entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiffs on 11.03.2010 agreeing to sell the subject matter of the agreement namely Plot Nos.179 and 180 for sale consideration of Rs.15,37,316/-. On the date of sale 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014agreement, the defendants 2 to 4 received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance amount. The time stipulated for completing the sale transaction was three months (upto 14.06.2010 as per the agreement). On 12.06.2010, the defendants 2 to 4 received a further sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lakhs only) from the plaintiffs and made an endorsement in the said sale agreement extending the time till 16.07.2010. The plaintiffs issued a public notice in a Tamil newspaper on 01.07.2010 mentioning their willingness to purchase the agreement mentioned property and inviting objection if any from the aggrieved persons. Thereafter, the 1st defendant cancelled the general power of attorney in favour of defendants 2 to 4 by issuing a notice. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 07.07.2010 calling upon all the defendants to execute a sale deed pursuant to the suit sale agreement, mainly on the ground that the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiffs was executed even prior to the cancellation of power deed and hence, the same was valid and binding on the defendants. Since there was no favourable response, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for specific performance.3. The defendants 2 to 4 remained exparte and the suit was contested only by the 1st defendant by filing a written statement.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 20144. It was the specific case of the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 were friends and in order to grab the property of the 1st defendant, they fabricated the suit agreement dated 11.03.2010 and filed the vexatious suit. It was the specific case of the 1st defendant that suit sale agreement was an ante-dated agreement prepared subsequent to the cancellation of the power deed executed by him. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. The 1st defendant also denied the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to pay the sale consideration.5. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance as prayed for?2. Whether the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to purchase the suit property and they have means to pay the balance sale consideration?3. Whether the agreement dated 11.03.2010 is a true and valid document or not?4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 20146. Before the Trial Court, the 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one of the attestor to suit sale agreement was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 24 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A24. On behalf of the 1st defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and one Vijaya Anandhan, neighbouring land owner, was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of the 1st defendant, 12 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B12.7. The Trial Court, based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit sale agreement was a genuine one and granted decree for specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful 1st defendant has come up by way of this appeal.8. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant submitted that though the plaintiffs claimed to have paid Rs.15,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration mentioned in the suit sale agreement, they failed to prove the actual payment of the said amount. It is further submitted by him that eventhough three months period was fixed for performance of the contract under the sale agreement to enable the parties to fix boundary stones, as per the admission of P.W.1 the property was well demarcated even before the suit sale agreement. Hence, according to him, absolutely, there was no necessity 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014for the parties to fix three months time for performance in the suit sale agreement. He further submitted that in the public advertisement issued by the plaintiffs marked as Ex.A5, there was no reference about the suit sale agreement and the same was issued after alleged payment of Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, according to him, the case of the plaintiffs is not probable. He also stated that counsel who represented the defendants 2 to 4 in the criminal proceedings and the plaintiffs in the present suit are one and the same. It shows collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4.9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, by taking this Court to the admissions of D.W.1, submitted that the case pleaded by the 1st defendant in his written statement was shattered by the admissions of D.W.1. The learned counsel further submitted that even prior to the execution of suit sale agreement, there was a sale agreement between the 1st defendant on the one hand and defendants 2 to 4 on the other hand under Ex.A22 dated 19.08.1996 and pursuant to the said sale agreement, the entire sale consideration was paid. Only after receiving the entire sale consideration under Ex.A22, the 1st defendant executed power deed in favour of defendants 2 to 4. The learned counsel further submitted that evidence of P.W.2, attestor to Ex.A4, suit sale agreement, proves due execution of sale agreement.6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014 10. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the submission made by the counsel on either side, the following points are arising for consideration in this appeal.1. Whether the suit sale agreement marked as Ex.A4 is an ante-dated document as pleaded by the 1st defendant?2. Whether the plaintiffs proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract?3. Whether the Trial Court is justified in granteng a decree for specific performance? Discussion on Point No.111. It is the specific defense of the 1st defendant that suit sale agreement was an ante-dated document created subsequent to the cancellation of the power deed executed by him by notice dated 05.07.2010. In order to prove due execution of Ex.A4, suit sale agreement, the plaintiffs examined P.W.2, who, in his evidence, clearly deposed about the execution of suit sale agreement between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants 2 to 4 on the other hand. He also talks about the payment of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in his presence. A perusal of bank account statement of the 1st 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014plaintiff marked as Ex.A15 would indicate that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the 1st plaintiff by 4th defendant namely Shanmugam on 12.03.2010. A sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid in favour of one Kanagaraj on 18.06.2010. In Ex.A3, it is clearly mentioned that 2nd defendant namely Ganesan was also known as Kanagaraj. Ex.A15 is the passbook issued to the 1st plaintiff by Bank of India. A perusal of the same would indicate that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to said Kanagaraj through cheque clearance. Likewise, on 24.03.2010, the next cheque with Cheque No.161320 was encashed for the value of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated by the witness (P.W.2) Kumarasamy who was paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque, returned the same and received a cash. Therefore, withdrawals found in Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 proves the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by the plaintiffs as early as March 2010 well prior to the cancellation of the power deed by the 1st defendant. Therefore, in the light of the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A14 and Ex.A15, this Court, comes to the conclusion that suit sale agreement is a genuine document entered on 11.03.2010 between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 4 and it was not an ante-dated document as pleaded by the 1st defendant.8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 201412. It is also pertinent to mention that when the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1, he deposed that the written statement was prepared by his advocate as per the instructions given by one Vijaya Andandhan, who is a neighbouring land owner, examined as D.W.2. He also admitted that he was not fully aware of the contents of the written statement. The relevant portion of the D.W.1 reads as follows :-“thjpf;F tHf;fwp"h; mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpdjh vd;gJ vdf;F bjhpatpy;iy mJ tHf;fwp"Uf;F jhd; bjhpa[k;. vd; vjph; tHf;Fiuapy; vd;d tptuk; brhy;ypapUf;fpnwd; vd;gJk; vdf;F bjhpa[k;. vjph; tHf;Fiuia jahh; bra;tjw;F tp$a; Mde;j; vd;gth; tptuk; brhd;dhh;. vdnt vjph; tHf;Fiuapy; vd;d tptuk; brhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ vdf;F bjhpahJ Xust[f;F bjhpa[k;.” 13. Therefore, by his fatal admission, D.W.1 shattered his case that suit sale agreement was an ante-dated document. Further, he clearly admitted that for the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiffs, he failed to give any reply. If the suit sale agreement is an ante-dated document, immediately after receipt of 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014Ex.A7, notice issued by the plaintiffs, he should have promptly replied denying the suit sale agreement. Ex.A10 is the postal acknowledgment signed by the 1st defendant which was dated 14.07.2010. Therefore, it is clear that legal notice issued by the plaintiffs dated 07.07.2010 was received by 1st defendant on 14.07.2010. However, for the reasons best known to him, he failed to issue any reply notice denying the suit sale agreement.14. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court comes to the conclusion that the suit sale agreement is a genuine document and the plea raised by the 1st defendant that it was an ante-dated document cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered against the appellant/1st defendant. Discussion on Point Nos.2 and 3:- 15. As discussed earlier, the attestor to the suit sale agreement, who was examined as P.W.2 clearly deposed about the execution of the suit sale agreement and passing of consideration. Ex.A14 and Exs.A15, bank account statement and bank passbook filed by the plaintiffs would establish that payment of portion of the sale consideration through bank transaction. From 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014Ex.A4 and Ex.A3, it is clear that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- out of total agreed sale consideration of Rs.15,37,316/- was paid by the plaintiffs well within the agreed time limit of three months i.e., on 12.06.2010. After receiving the 2nd installment of consideration, an endorsement was made by the agreement vendees extending time upto 16.07.2010. In the meantime, after issuance of public notice by the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant issued a notice to defendants 2 to 4 and cancelled the power deed. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to issue a legal notice under Ex.A7 and filed a suit on 04.09.2010. The sequence of events and the documents referred above clearly establish that the plaintiffs paid more than 95 per cent of the sale consideration well within a time and the suit was also laid within the reasonable time from the date of cancellation of power deed by the 1st defendant. Therefore, this Court, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. 16. It is also seen from Ex.A22 and Ex.A23, even prior to the suit sale agreement, there was a sale agreement on 19.08.1996 between the 1st defendant on the one hand and defendants 2 to 4 on the other hand, whereunder, the 1st defendant agreed to sell the agreement mentioned property 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014to other defendants. As per the endorsement made in Ex.A22, the 1st defendant received the entire sale consideration from defendants 2 to 4 and executed an irrevocable general power of attorney. Therefore, it is clear that power deed was executed by 1st defendant only after receiving the sale consideration. In fact, the execution of Ex.A22 and Ex.A23 and the signatures found therein were accepted by D.W.1 and D.W.2 in their evidence. It is not in dispute that the suit sale agreement was executed by defendants 2 to 4 in favour of plaintiffs well prior to cancellation of power deed. Hence, we need not go to the question of validity of cancellation of power deed. The pre-suit notice was issued immediately after alleged cancellation of power deed and suit was filed within reasonable time without undue delay. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract and granted decree for specific performance.17. In view of the discussion made earlier, I do not find anything to interfere with the findings rendered by the Trial Court and accordingly, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the appellants. 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 201418. In view of the conclusion reached by this Court in Point Nos.1 to 3, the appeal suit stands dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.23.09.2025Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation Case: Yes/NonrToThe learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.280 of 2014S.SOUNTHAR , J. nrA.S.No.280 of 201423.09.202514/14