Allowed

V.Baskar v. Shanmugam

Madras HC28 Sept 2021SA/148/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal concerns a suit for specific performance. The High Court set aside lower courts' dismissal, finding no evidence supported the defendants' claim that the transaction was a loan. Relying on Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the Court decreed the sale in favor of the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dismissing the specific performance suit are set aside. The suit is decreed in favor of plaintiff; defendants to execute the sale deed within three months and receive balance c

What the court decided

V.Baskar Vs Shanmugam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶33

No doubt true, 18 months time was fixed for completion of sale consideration. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was not having money to perform the contract and he was not ready and willing to perform the contract. On the other hand, an explanation has been given by the plaintiff that the 3^rd defendant approached the plaintiff for want of money, entered into a registered sale agreement. The defendants have not stated any reason for fixing 18 months time for execution of sale. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants have neither filed independent written statement nor entered the witness box to establish their defense, but the written statement was filed by the 3^rd defendant only in the capacity of power of attorney. It is also required to be noted that the 3^rd defendant who was arrayed as a party respondent in his individual capacity, after execution of the sale deed in his favour, had not chosen to file written statement in his individual capacity to explain as to how he got the sale deed executed in his favour, while Ex.A1, sale agreement executed by him as power Agent in favour of the plaintiff, was subsisting. It is also pertinent to note that as per the written statement, the case of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants is that the 3^rd defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff for purchasing stamp papers. But there is no evidence on the side of the 3^rd defendant who deposed as DW1 to prove the said fact. But he would depose that he has mobilized the money, purchased stamp papers and got the property registered, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants discharged loan and cancelled the sale agreement registered in favour of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the averments in the plaint are admitted. He admitted that on the strength of the power of attorney, a sale agreement was registered for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- for which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was received as advance. As per Ex.A2, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice, for which no reply was given by the defendants. The 3^rd defendant who was also aware of the fact that a suit for specific performance has been filed on 02.04.2008, purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and he has not disclosed this fact before the trial Court in his chief examination. He also suppressed the fact of registration of the Sale Deed, dated 28.05.2008 in his written statement filed on behalf of his principals, dated 15.07.2008. Both these oral and documentary evidences clearly prove the suppression of fact and dishonest conduct on the part of the defendants. The Courts below have failed to note the conduct of the defendants, in suppressing the facts, as well as, their ulterior move to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Though the Courts below had found in the suit that there is suppression of fact, failure to appear before the Courts below to let in

V.Baskar v. Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Boopathy Ramalingam(Died), Vs v.Venkataraju

The Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs Sanjeev Rajan

J.Harishkumar Vs L.Manimozhi Arasan

Seethapathy Vs Arumugam

V.Baskar v. Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Boopathy Ramalingam(Died), Vs v.Venkataraju

The Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs Sanjeev Rajan

J.Harishkumar Vs L.Manimozhi Arasan

Seethapathy Vs Arumugam

A compact analysis

Mehaboobjohn Vs S. Baskar