Rajamanickam v. Perumal
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal challenging specific performance decree based on alleged covert loan security. Court held defendant could raise different intention defense despite admitting execution. Decree set aside; defendant directed to refund advance.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal allowed; judgment and decree of courts below set aside; defendant directed to refund Rs.60,000 with 12% p.a. interest within two months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Second Appeal No.491 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
Rajamanickam ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant vs. Perumal ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 made in A.S.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur, confirming the the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011 made in O.S.No.314 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Murugamanickam For Respondent : Mr.R.Vasudevan
The appellant is the defendant in a suit for specific performance. The respondent as the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 23.06.2003 marked as Ex.A1.
2.According to the plaintiff and as per Ex.A1, the total consideration fixed was Rs.80,500/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid as advance on the date of the agreement and for paying the balance sum of Rs.20,500/-, two years time limit was fixed. It is the contention of the plaintiff that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant has not come forward to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Therefore, he contended that after issuing a notice on 17.06.2005, marked as Ex.A2, the present suit is filed on 23.06.2005.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bars a defendant from defending that an agreement of sale was actually executed as security for a loan.
Whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance established readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether, setting aside the specific performance decree, the defendant is liable to refund the advance payment received.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rajamanickam
- respondent
Perumal
Coram
K. Ravichandrababu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court