Madras High Court · 2025

S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025JUDGMENTThe Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.60 of 2018, dated 04.07.2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.263 of 2008, dated 20.06.2016 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. 2. The appellant is the first plaintiff. The appellant/first plaintiff along with respondents 2 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 4 filed a suit, directing the defendant to receive Rs.90,000/- payable by the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to execute a document cancelling the sale deed, dated 26.10.2007 or in alternative, directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at Rs.2/- per Rs.100 per month from 26.10.2007 till payment. 3. The first respondent/defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 20.06.2016, partly allowing the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 26.10.2007 till payment and in case of failure to pay, creating charge over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025preferred an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2018 and the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 04.07.2022, partly allowing the appeal and directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 12 % per annum from 26.10.2007 till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Challenging the impugned judgment and decree, the first plaintiff filed the present second appeal. 4. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.” 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to Section 100 C.P.C., which are as follows;4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025“(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.”6. Bearing the settled legal position in mind, let us proceed with the present case. 7. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : a) The defendant purchased the suit property vide sale deed, dated 26.10.2007 for Rs.3,10,000/-, but Rs.90,000/- alone was paid. Both the first plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on 26.10.2007 permitting the defendant to retain Rs.2,20,000/- from the sale price and the first plaintiff agreed to clear encumbrance existed over the suit property and to get back Rs.2,20,000/- from the defendant.b) Though the first plaintiff approached the defendant several times and demanded him to return the balance sale price of Rs.2,20,000/-, the defendant has not chosen to return the amount. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 21.07.2008, but the defendant having received the same, 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025neither sent any reply nor complied with the notice demand. Hence, the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit. 8.The defence of the defendant is that the defendant has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.3,10,000/- on the date of sale deed and on that basis, sale deed was executed on 26.10.2007. Since the defendant came to know that the first plaintiff has already entered into the sale agreement with one Latha Rajan and hence, there was some encumbrances over the suit property, he directed the first plaintiff to make necessary arrangements and in pursuance of the same, the first plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant paying Rs.2,20,000/- to the defendant and agreed to get back that amount after settling the encumbrance over the suit property. Since the plaintiffs have not discharged the encumbrance over the suit property, the defendant was constrained to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards principal and Rs.30,000/- for interest totally Rs.1,80,000/- to the said Latha Rajan on 11.02.2008, for which, the said Latha Rajan made an endorsement in the agreement. Though the defendant requested the plaintiff to receive the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-, they refused to receive the same and that the defendant is ready to deposit Rs.40,000/- before the Court. 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 20259. The plaintiff filed a reply statement stating that the agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the said Latha Rajan already got lapsed and she has not shown any interest to purchase the property and therefore, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any amount to the said Latharajan; that the said Latha Rajan never approached the plaintiff and claimed the refund of the amount and that since the plaintiffs have not directed the defendant to settle the amount allegedly due to Latha Rajan, they are not entitled for reimbursement of the same.10. During trial, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited four documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and three other witnesses Thiru.K.K.P.Mani, Thiru.Shanmugam and Tmt.Latha Rajan as D.W.2 to D.W.4 respectively and exhibited four documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. 11. It is not in dispute that the defendant purchased the suit property vide sale deed, dated 26.10.2007 from the plaintiffs under Ex.A.1. The plaintiffs have not specifically disputed Ex.A.1 sale deed, but according to the plaintiffs, though sale price was fixed at Rs.3,10,000/-, the defendant paid only Rs.90,000/-and retained Rs.2,20,000/- and that since the same was not paid, the present suit came to be filed. 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 202512. As rightly referred by the trial Court, P.W.1 in his cross examination would admit the payments found in Ex.A.1 sale agreement and the exact portion is extracted hereunder : “fpiuag;gj;jpuj;jpy; fz;Ls;s thrfq;fs; rhpahdit. fpiuag;gj;jpuj;jpy; &.3>10>000/-I nuhf;fkhf thq;fpf;nfhz;L fpiuak; nra;J nfhLf;fg;gl;ljhf fz;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;.13. Considering the above, the trial Court has come to a finding that there was no balance sale price due by the defendant to the plaintiffs. It is also not in dispute that the first plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on 26.10.2007 under Ex.A.2 and the relevant recitals are extracted hereunder for better appreciation ; “1tJ egUf;Fk;> Nkw;gbahupd; kf;fSf;Fk; ghj;jpag;gl;l ,jdbapw;fz;l nrhj;ij ek;kpy; 1tJ egu; tifawh Ngu;fs; ek;kpy; 2tJ eguhd gpujpthjpf;F Rj;jf;fpiuak; nra;J nfhLj;J KO fpiuaj; njhifiaAk; vt;tpj ghf;fpAkpd;wp ngw;Wf;nfhz;Ltpl;lhu;fs;. ,e;epiyapy; ek;kpy; 1tJ eguhy; fPo;f;fz;l &.2>20>000/-j;ij Nkw;gb egu;fSf;F nfhLg;gjw;F Mjhukhf Xu; nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J rpy egu;fSf;F nfhLf;fNtz;ba ghf;fpj;njhif xg;ge;jg;gj;jpuk; 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025gpwg;Gtpj;Jf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lnkd;W 2tJ eguhd gpujpthjp 1k; eguhd 1k; thjpaplk; Nfl;ljd;Ngupy; 1k; thjpAk; rk;kjpj;J xg;Gf;nfhz;L Nkw;gb fpiuaj;jpypUe;J kPz;Lk; &.2>20>000/-j;ij kl;Lk; ek;kpy; 2tJ egu; trk; 1k; egu; nfhLj;J ehsJ Njjpapy; ehk; ,UtUk; Nru;e;J ,e;j xg;ge;jg;gj;jpuk; gpwg;gpj;Jf;nfhz;Nlhk; vd;Wk; vdNt ek;kpy; 1k; egu; NkNy fz;lgb fPo;f;fz;l nrhj;ij nghWj;J rpy egu;fSf;F nfhLf;f Ntz;ba ghf;fp njhif &.2>20>000/-j;ijAk; ek;kpy; 1k; egu; jd; nrhe;j nghWg;gpy; gpw egu;fSf;F nfhLj;Jtpl;L ehsJ Njjpapy; 2k; egu; trk; 1k; egu; nfhLj;Js;s njhif &gha; 2>20>000/-j;ij 2k; eguplkpUe;J 1 k; egu; ngw;Wf;nfhz;L ,e;j xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuj;ij Kbj;Jf;nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. 14. It is also not in dispute that the first plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement with D.W.4 Latha Rajan for the suit property, which did not materialise. According to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to inform the earlier agreement with the said Latha Rajan and after coming to know about the same, the defendant demanded the first plaintiff to safeguard his interest. It is their further case that the first plaintiff gave Rs.2,20,000/- from sale price and requested the defendant to retain the said amount and agreed to clear the encumbrance over the suit property and to get back the amount from the defendant. 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 202515.It is the specific case of the defendant that since the plaintiffs have not cleared the encumbrance and D.W.4 approached the defendant to get her amount due by the first plaintiff, the defendant with no option paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards principal and Rs.30,000/- as interest totally Rs.1,80,000/- on 11.02.2008 and upon receiving the same, she made an endorsement under Ex.P.2 on the back side of Ex.B.1 agreement. 16.The main contention of the plaintiff is that Ex.B.1 agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the Latha Rajan already got lapsed and moreover, she was not interested in purchasing the property and that therefore, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay any amount to the said Latha Rajan. Even assuming that they are liable, it is for the plaintiffs to settle the amount and not for the defendant to settle the amount and claim set off. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, there was no term or clause in Ex.A.2 agreement for the defendant has to clear the encumbrance 17. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, Section 62 of Limitation Act sets a 12-years limitation period to "enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or charged on immovable property, staring from when the money 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025becomes due. The plaintiffs have specifically admitted the Ex.B.1 agreement with Latha Rajan, but the same was not materialized. As contended by the defendant before the appellate Court, the said Latha Rajan to get the refund of the amount paid under Ex.B.1 sale agreement, is having charge over the suit property and that she can enforce that right within a period of 12 years as per Section 62 of Limitation Act. 18. The defendant relied on Sections 69 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act before the first appellate Court. Section 69 allows reimbursement if someone pays money another is legally bound to pay, and payer has an interest in payment.19. Section 70 obliges a person who receives a non-gratuitous benefit from an act done lawfully for them to compensate the doer.20. In other words, Section 69 lets someone recover money paid to protect their interest if another was legally required to pay. Section 70 requires compensation if someone benefits from an act done non-gratuitously.21.In the present case, as already pointed out, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the first plaintiff paid the amount due to D.W.4 Latha Rajan and 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025cleared the encumbrance. Since the first plaintiff failed and also the fact that the encumbrance was subsisting, according to the defendant, she was forced to pay the amount due to D.W.4 Latha Rajan and as such, she is entitled to make set off in the amount due by her to the first plaintiff. 22. The first appellate Court has rightly applied the legal position and came to a finding that the defendant is entitled to set off Rs.1,50,000/-, which was paid to D.W.4 Latha Rajan and is liable to pay Rs.70,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum till the date of sale deed and thereafter, 6% per annum till the date of realization. 23. Moreover, in the absence of any contract between the parties, the appellate Court refused to set off Rs.30,000/-which was paid towards interest to D.W.4. Considering the above, the first appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal in part and directed the defendant to pay Rs.70,000/- with interest and costs. The appellant has not shown that any material evidence available in the case had been ignored by the first appellate Court or that there was no evidence at all. The appellant has also not shown any wrong inference had been drawn by the first appellate Court from the proved facts by applying the law erroneously. The appellant has also not canvassed any stand that the Courts below have wrongly placed the burden of proof. 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 202524. It is pertinent to note that the first appellate Court on appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence and the legal aspects in proper perspective has come to a definite decision that the plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs claimed. 25.Considering the judgments of the Courts below, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, no question of law much less Substantial Question of Law is made out. It is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the first appellate Court, confirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence, this Court concludes that since no substantial question of law is made out in the second appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the appellate Court made in A.S.No.60 of 2018, dated 04.07.2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, modifying the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.263 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. No costs. 19.12.2025NCC :Yes/NoIndex :Yes/NoInternet : Yes/ Nodas14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025To:1.The Principal District Court, Dindigul.2.The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD)No.612 of 2025K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.DAS Pre-delivery Judgment made inS.A.(MD).No.612 of 2025Dated: 19.12.202516/16