This court dismissed an appeal for specific performance of a sale agreement. The High Court held the appellant failed to prove he was ready and willing to perform the contract, rejecting evidence of his financial capacity and availability for execution.
Appeal Suit dismissed without costs; trial court judgment and decree upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.02.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Appeal Suit (MD)No.641 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
Abdul Wahab : Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.
1.Mohammed Rafiq 2.Hajira Beevi 3.Galeel Rahman 4.Sirajudeen : Respondents/Defendants
Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2011 passed in Original Suit No.33 of 2007 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli, partly dismissing the suit in so far as the relief directing the respondents herein to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the appellant herein, failing which to execute the sale deed in his favour by legal process.
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sundar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.CHOCKALINGAM, J .)
Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2011, passed in Original Suit No.33 of 2007 by the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.33 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of specific performance, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants.
3.It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ancestral family property of the defendants. The defendants have partitioned their family properties by means of registered partition deed, dated 16.11.2006 and the suit property has been allotted to the share of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the mother of the defendants 1, 3 and 4. On 01.02.2007, the 1st defendant entered into a sale agreement with
2
the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and sale price is fixed at Rs.17,00,000/-. The plaintiff has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- on 15.04.2007 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 15.06.2007 in two instalments. It was agreed that after the receipt of full sale consideration, the 1st defendant has to execute the sale deed. But subsequent to the sale agreement, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 colluded with each other and trying to make a sham and nominal document with the 1st defendant in respect of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice and telegram notice to the 1st defendant on 14.02.2007 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. But the 1st defendant has not sent any reply. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that on 15.02.2007, the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 2 to 4. Hence, the suit has been filed for the relief as stated above.
4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants, it is averred as follows :-
It is admitted that the suit property is the ancestral property of the defendants. The sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is a forged one. Due to previous enmity between the 1st defendant and one Jamal, who helped the 1st defendant and his wife at the time of purchasing a property on 06.03.2007, had colluded with the plaintiff and created a forged document, dated 01.02.2007. The alleged sale transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is false. The alleged sale agreement is an unregistered one. As the 1st defendant was in financial crisis, he sold the suit property to the defendants 2 to 4 for valuable consideration on 15.02.2007. The contention of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract is denied. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5.On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has partly decreed the suit. As against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Appeal Suit has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.
6.The trial court has partly decreed the suit, directing the defendants to pay the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from 01.02.2007 till the date of payment with costs and the plaintiff was given liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, which he has deposited on 07.10.2010 into court and dismissed the suit in respect of other reliefs.
7.Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the Appeal Suit mainly on the following grounds:-
(i)The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the first defendant has executed Ex.A1 Sale Agreement, dated 01.02.2007 in favour of the plaintiff and the trial court ought to have granted specific https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ performance relief and further the trial court has rightly held that Ex.A2 Sale Deed is a sham and nominal document, but the trial court has failed to grant relief as prayed for by the appellant/plaintiff.
(ii)The trial court erred in withholding the relief for specific
3
performance without any valid reason and sound principles of law.
(iii)The other reasons stated by the trial court in dismissing the plea for grant of specific performance is not correct and the judgment and decree of the trial court have to be set aside and decree has to be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff as prayed for.
8.The trial court, after perusing the entire records and hearing the elaborate arguments of both sides, has given a finding that Ex.A1 Sale Agreement is a genuine one and Ex.A2 Sale Deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 is a sham and nominal document and directed the defendants to return the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from 01.02.2007 till the date of payment with costs and the plaintiff was given liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, which he has deposited on 07.10.2010 into the court. Against the said finding of the trial court, the defendants have not preferred any independent appeal or cross appeal and therefore, the finding of the trial court has become final with regard to the above aspects.
9.Per contra, on the side of the respondents/defendants, it is argued that Ex.A1 Sale Agreement is a forged document and created for the purpose of grabbing the property of the defendants and the trial court ought to have come to the conclusion that Ex.A1 is not a genuine one and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract is totally false and denied and since Ex.A1 Sale Agreement is a forged one and created for the purpose of grabbing the property of the defendants, no relief can be granted upon the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of Ex.A1. Hence, the Appeal Suit has to be dismissed with costs.
10.Further, on the side of the respondents/defendants, it is argued that the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract is totally false and he has no source of income to perform his part of contract and therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the relief of specific performance, pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff and therefore, on that ground also, the Appeal Suit has to be dismissed.
11.After perusing the decree and judgment of the trial court and hearing the arguments on either side, the points arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit are :-
(1)Whether the appellant/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part contract or not?
(2)Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?
(3)What other reliefs, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to?
12.In this case, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specific performance and therefore, he has to prove that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, as per the Sale Agreement Ex.A1.
13.The specific case of the plaintiff is that as per the Ex.A1
4
Agreement of Sale, dated 01.02.2007, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and thereafter, he came to know that the first defendant is going to execute a sham and nominal document in favour of the other defendants in respect of the suit property and therefore, he issued a lawyer's notice to the 1st defendant and a telegram on 14.2.2007 expressing his willingness to perform his part of contract by paying the entire balance sale consideration as per Ex.A1 Sale Agreement.
14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has argued that the fact asserted by the appellant/plaintiff that he was ready to fulfil his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- on 14.02.2007 is totally false and the appellant/plaintiff has no source of income. The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that he was always ready to perform his part of contract and in this regard, on 14.02.2007, he issued a lawyer's notice and telegram notice to the first defendant, expressing his readiness and willing to get the sale executed in his favour by the first defendant after paying the entire balance sale consideration. Except that allegation, after 15.02.2007, till the suit was filed i.e., on 15.03.2007 and after the issuance of notice, dated 15.02.2007, his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract has not specifically stated in the plaint.
15.Section 16 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as follows:-
“ 16.Personal bars to relief. - Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-
(a)......
(b)......
(c)who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation.-For the purpose of clause [c],-
(i)where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in Court any money except when so directed by the Court;
(ii)the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.”
16.The specific averment made in the plaint is that the plaintiff was ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- into the court, but he has not prepared to deposit the entire sale consideration on 15.03.2007 itself before the court. But there is no specific averment in the plaint that after issuance of notice he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff has averred and proved his willingness to perform his part of contract cannot be accepted.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.On the side of the respondents/defendants, it is contended that the appellant/plaintiff was having no money to perform his part of contract, as mentioned in the Agreement of Sale Ex.A1.
18.For evaluating the arguments of both sides, we have to go
5
through the deposition given by PW1 and PW2.
19.PW1 in his chief examination specifically deposed that before the execution of Ex.A1 Sale Agreement, there is a contractual terms were agreed between the parties, since the plaintiff has not prepared to pay the advance amount and he asked two days' time for the payment and execution of Ex.A1 Sale Agreement. This fact is seen from the deposition of PW1:-
“””V1 vGJtjw;F 2 ehl;fSf;F Kd;g[ Bgr;Rthh;j;ij elj;jpBdhk;. xBu xUKiwjhd; Bgr;Rthh;j;ij elj;jpBdhk;. m;e;j Bgr;R thh;j;ijapByBa fpiuak; thA;Ftjhf xj;Jf; bfhz;L fpiua gzk; Kot [ bra;Bjhk;. Bgr;R thh;j;ij elj;jpa Bjjpapy; vJt[k; vGjpf;bfhs;stpy;iy. gzk;ghpkhw;wk; vJt[k; eilbgwtpy;iy. me;j Bgr;Rthh;j;ij mog;gilapy; V1 gpd;dpl;L vGjg;gl;lJ. ehd; nuz;L ehl;fs; mtfhrk; Bfl;ljhy;, Bgr;Rthh;j;ij elj;jpa Bjjpapy; xg;ge;jk; vGjpbfhs;stpy;iy. gzk; jahh; bra;tjw;fhf 2 ehl;fs; fhy mtfhrk; ehd; Bfl;Bld;. jA;f eiffis mlkhdk; itj;Jk; ifapypUe;j gzj;ij itj;Jk; V1y; fz;l bjhifia brYj;jpBdd;. ifapy; 1 yl;rk; ifapy; nUe;jJ. eifia mlF itj;j tifapy; }U.1 yl;rk; f;pilj;jJ. ehd; tUkhd thp brYj;JfpBwd;. V1y; ehd; bfhLj;j gzk; tUkhdthpfzf;fpy; fhl;oa[s;Bsd;. mij jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy. Mdhy; jhf;fy; bra;aKoa[k;.”
20.From the above evidence of PW1, the plaintiff has no source of income to pay the advance amount and only by pledging jewels and borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance available with him, he paid the advance amount. But on the side of the plaintiff, PW3, his son has stated that he pledged the jewels for Rs.1,30,000/- in the bank and in order to prove the same, the copy of the account statement issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Puthanatham, dated 01.02.2007 has been marked as Ex.X1. So, from the above, it is made clear that the plaintiff has no sufficient money and he only borrowed money by way of pledging jewels from the bank and even though, this fact was entered into the accounts of the plaintiff, he has not produced any accounts before the court.
21.According to the appellant/plaintiff, he was always ready with the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and willing to perform his part of contract and to that effect, in his evidence, he deposed that:-
““$~d; khjk; fpiuak; bra;J bfhs;tjhf V1y; fhybfL eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. V1y; fz;l bfLtpw;Fs; vdf;F gzk; jauhfptpl;lJ. 10.02.2007f;Fs; g {uh gzKk; jahuhf vd; iftrk; nUe;jJ. eiffis tpw;Bwd; :U.10 yl;rj;jpw;F eiffis tpw;Bwd;. kPjp gzk; vd;dplk; nUe;jJ. brhe;jf;fhuh;fsplKk; 3 yl;rk; thA;fpBdd;. vd; kidtpaplKk; vd; kfdplKk; thA;fpBdd;. kidtpaplk; :U.1 yl;rk;, kfd;, kUkfd; MfpBahplk; jyh 1 yl;rk; thA;fpBdd;. mth;fs; midtUk; tUkhdthp brYj;Jfpwhh;fs;. me;j fld;fis jpUg;gp bfhLj;Jtpl;Bld;. ve;j Bjjp fld; thA;fpBdd;, ve;j Bjjpapy; jpUg;gp bfhLj;Bjd; vd;gjw;F fzf;F cs;sJ. me;j fzf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;Bsd;. 10.02.2007 md;W gzk; jahuhf cs;sJ vd;W 1tJ vjp[h;thjpaplk; brhy;ytpy;iy.
22.Hence, from the above deposition of PW1, it is made clear that the appellant/plaintiff has no money and he has raised money of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of selling jewels and borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from his close relatives viz., son, wife and son-in-law [Rs.1,00,000/- each]. Even though, he has admitted that he is having account and produced the same into court, no accounts were produced as stated on the side of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plaintiff. He further deposed that his wife, son and son-in-law are income tax assessee and they are having accounts, but he has not produced any accounts of them and not taken any steps to summon those accounts.
6
23.Further, even according to the appellant/plaintiff, he was ready and having amount for the execution of Sale Agreement on 10.02.2007, he voluntarily stated that the amounts borrowed by him as stated were repaid and he has not able to say the date on which the amounts were repaid to his son, wife and son-in-law. Therefore, it is made clear that he raised funds by raising loans and from his close relatives and he has no other source of income as stated by the plaintiff in his deposition. Therefore, even after, the appellant/plaintiff repaid the money borrowed by him, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract with the balance sale consideration is unbelievable and totally false and cannot be accepted.
24.Further, even from the statement of PW1 that he raised amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of pledging jewels and borrowed a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from his close relatives, the funds available with the plaintiff was around Rs.13,00,000/-. But at the time of the execution of sale deed, balance sale consideration to be paid is Rs.15,00,000/- and for the execution of sale deed, non-judicial stamp papers at 10% on the sale price have to be purchased and registration charges and other expenses are to be met out by the plaintiff himself. So, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract with the above-said available funds are not sufficient and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that he was having money to perform his part of contract, is not at all acceptable.
25.Further, according to the appellant/plaintiff, on 14.02.2007 expressing his willingness to perform his part of contract, has issued a lawyer's notice as well as telegram notice on 14.02.2007 and the notices have been marked as Exs.A3 & A5. But in Ex.A3, no date has been mentioned. Even according to the appellant/plaintiff, the lawyer's notice and telegram notice issued on the same day i.e., 14.02.2007, there is no reference of Ex.A3 in Ex.A5 telegram vice versa. If both are issued on the same day, there may be some reference in both the documents.
26.In Ex.A3 (Lawyer's notice), it has been stated that:-
”“ne;j mwptpg;g[ fpilj;jt[ld; jhA;fs; vdJ fl;rpf;fhuhplkpUe;J tuBtz;oa fpiua ghf;fpj; bjhif U.15,00,000/- (Ugha; gjpide;J yl;rk; kl;Lk;) bgw;Wf; bfhz;L vdJ fl;rpf;fhuh; bgaUf;F fpuag; gj;jpuk; vGjp gjpt[ bra;J bfhLf;f Btz;Lbkd;W njd; Kyk; mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”“
27.In Ex.A5 (Telegram), it has been stated that:-
“AS PER OUR SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.02.2007 THE BALANCE OF SALE AMOUNT OF RUPEES FIFTEEN LAKH IS READY TO BE GIVEN TO YOU I AM WAITING AT THE MANAPPARAI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE ON 15.02.2007 PLEASE RECEIVE THE BALANCE SALE PRICE AND EXCUTE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF ME.”
Therefore, it is made clear from Ex.A3 legal notice that the appellant/plaintiff has not stated his date of presence before the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai and who has to bear the non-judicial stamp papers cost and registration fee etc., and whether the appellant/plaintiff is ready on which date to perform his part of contract before the Sub Registrar, Manaparai.
28.According to the appellant/plaintiff, he sent a telegram on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.02.2007 informing that he is waiting in the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai to get the sale deed executed, but except that averment, no evidence has been produced on the side of the plaintiff that he was waiting in the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai to get the sale deed executed from the first defendant in his favour on 15.02.2007 itself.
7
Further, it is seen from the evidence of PW1, he has not stated anything that he went to Sub Registrar Office, Manaparai, with entire balance sale consideration on 15.02.2007 and waiting there for getting sale deed and registered.
29.The plaintiff's own brother has examined as PW2 in this case and PW2 in his chief examination has stated that:-
““ehDk; thjpa[k; kzg;ghiw rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 15.07.2007k; Bjjpad;W fhiy 10.00 kzp Kjy; khiy 4.00 kzptiu fhj;Jf;bfhz;oUe;Bjhk;. Mdhy; 1k; gpujpthjp 15.02.2007k; Bjjp khiy 4.00 tiu kzg;ghiw rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfk; tuhjjhy; ehA;fs; jpUk;gp te;J tpl;Blhk;. gpd;dh; 15.02.2007k; Bjjpapy; 1k; gpujpthjpa[k; 2,3,4 gpujpthjpfSk; jhthr;brhj;jpidg; bghUj;J fpiua tpiy U.2,58,000/-f;F fpiuak; bra;J cs;sjhf thjpia Vkhw;w xU gte;jkhd fpiuag; gj;jpuk; vGjp gjpt [ bra;Js;s tpguk; thjpf;F 7 ehl;fSf;F gpd;dh; bjhpa te;jJ.““
30.Hence, even though the plaintiff has not stated anything about his presence on 15.02.2007 before the Sub Registrar office, his own brother interested witness (PW2) has stated that he and PW1 were awaiting in the Sub Registrar office at Manaparai on 15.02.2007 from 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m., but the first defendant has not turned up to the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai on that date and only after seven days, they came to know that on 15.02.2007 the first defendant had executed a sham and nominal document in favour of the defendants 2 to 4 and the copy of the same has been marked as Ex.A2.
31.But in Ex.A2 at page No.2, it has been stated that:-
“2007k; Mz;L gpg;uthp jpA;fs; 15k; ehs; 12 - 1 kzpfSf;fpilapy; kzg;ghiw rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;J fl;lzk; U.2580 + 100/-brYj;jpath;:
Xk;/- vk;.fyPy; u#;khd;,
vGjpf; bfhLj;jjhf xg;g[f;bfhz;lth;: xk;/- vk;.Kfk;kJ ugPf;. vGjp thA;fpajhf xg;g[f;bfhz;lthfs;: Xk;/- #h$puhgPtP, xk;/-vk;.rpuh$pjPd;,
and the Sale Deed was registered on 15.02.2007 before the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai. Hence, as stated by PW2 in his chief examination, if he and the plaintiff were waiting in the Sub Registrar office at Manaparai on 15.07.2007 from 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m., they must know about the presence of the defendants 1 to 4 on that day itself before the Sub Registrar at Manaparai. Because documentary evidence is available to the effect that the defendants 1 to 4 were waiting in the Sub Registrar office at Manaparai between 12.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m., while presenting the document before the Sub-Registrar, Manaparai, before and after registration, it will take some time for the preparation of sale deed and to do some expenses and other things and they must be available in the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai upto two or three hours. Hence, there is definite and conclusive evidence for the above fact that the defendants 1 to 4 were available before the Sub Registrar Office at Manaparai on 15.02.2007. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that he along with PW2 was waiting in the Sub Registrar Office from 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m., is utter false https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the contention of the plaintiff that he was waiting with the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- to get the sale deed to be executed in his favour from the first defendant is a concocted story and imaginary one for the purpose of filing of the suit.
8
32.Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that he was ready with the entire balance sale consideration on 15.02.2007 before the Sub Registrar office at Manaparai to get the sale deed executed in his favour by the first defendant is disproved by document Ex.A2 itself.
33.From the above discussions, it is crystal clear that the appellant/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract on 15.02.2007 is not proved and even thereafter also, there is no evidence available on the part of PW1 that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The suit was filed only on 15.03.2007 and on that date also, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to deposit the balance sale price before the court to show his bona fide . The suit was decreed ex-parte on 20.04.2009 and even on that date also, the plaintiff was not ready to deposit any amount into court towards the balance sale consideration and only on 07.10.2010, i.e., after three years and seven months from the date of filing of the suit and 1-1/2 years from the date of ex-parte decree, he has deposited the balance sale consideration into the court.
34.On the side of the appellant/plaintiff, the following decisions are relied on in support of his contention:-
(1)In Sukhbir Singh and others vs. Brij Pal Singh and others reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2510 , it has been held that “ Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.16(C)- 'Ready and willing to perform' – Plea as to and proof by way of sub-Registrar's endorsement to the effect that buyer was present in his office for having sale deeds executed and registered by seller - It is explicit that buyer was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and had necessary funds to pass on consideration - Such averments are in accordance with Forms 47 and 48 of Civil P.C. – Proof or averment that he also had ready cash with him – Not necessary.
(2)In Rathinam Chettiar vs. Embar Naidu and another , reported in 1999(III) CTC 394 , it has been held that “Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 – Confetancy of the third party to sue on agreement – Agreement to sell entered into between 1st defendant and second defendant – Second defendant assigning all his rights to plaintiff for valuable consideration – Agreement containing recital that first defendant would execute sale deed in favour of second defendant or his nominees – Plaintiff has cause of action against first defendant and can sue in his own name.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(c) – Explanation – Purchaser need not actually tender price or deposit consideration in court except when so directed by court – Plaintiff (purchaser) establishing that he was always ready and willing to pay balance consideration and get sale deed executed – Plaintiff need not produce documents to show that he is having money with him to pay sale consideration.
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3 – No law prohibits filing of suit on last date of prescribed period of limitation -
(3)In 2001(4) Supreme 510 , reported in Sarita Rani vs. Deepak Raj & https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others , it has been held that “Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16 – Suit for specific performance decreed by two courts below – High court up set the findings in second appeal holding that defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser and that defendant vendor would suffer hardship as a result of sale – Appeal – Defendant No.2 had not even entered witness box in
9
support of his claim that he was bona fide purchaser – High Court could not have upset findings in second appeal – No plea of hardship had been raised by defendant concerned then question could not have been gone into - Impugned order of High Court was liable to be set aside and that of trial Court restored.”
35.In this case, this court is of the considered view that the appellant/plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of contract and the rulings cited above by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff are not applicable to the facts of this case.
36.Hence, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract is totally false. Since the appellant/plaintiff has sought for the relief of specific performance of contract and he has not shown his readiness to perform his part of contract throughout the period, he is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for specific performance sought for by the appellant/plaintiff and hence, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court.
37.The point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
38.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To,
The Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli.
+1cc to Mr.C.Sundaravadivel Advocate in SR.No. 10284.
+1cc to Mr.R.Sundar Advocate in SR.No. 10360. Copy To.
The Section officer, VR, Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai TS/03.03.2014/9C-5C
JUDGMENT MADE IN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal Suit (MD)No.641 of 2011 17.02.2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement?
What other reliefs the appellant is entitled to given the findings on readiness?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhbir Singh and others vs. Brij Pal Singh and othersDistinguished¶83
AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2510 · Who else cites this
Rathinam Chettiar vs. Embar Naidu and anotherDistinguished¶85
1999(III) CTC 394
Sarita Rani vs. Deepak Raj & othersDistinguished¶87
2001(4) Supreme 510
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Wahab
Mohammed Rafiq
Hajira Beevi
Galeel Rahman
Sirajudeen
G. Chockalingam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
