P.Annathai v. M.Mala
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal regarding specific performance of a sale agreement, theSingle Judge held that the transaction was a loan, not a sale. The Court found the plaintiff failed to prove continuity of readiness and willingness, dismissing the appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit.
What did the court decide?
Defendant directed to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs representing principal and interest; otherwise Plaintiff entitled to recover money. Second appeal dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.NO.459 OF 2014
AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2014
P.Annathai ... Appellant/ Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
M.Mala ... Respondent/ Appellant/Defendant
PRAYER:
The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2013 in A.S.No.41 of 2011 passed by the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Poonamallee in O.S.No.102 of 2005, dated 06.01.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.J.A.S.Sathish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Kamesh Kumar
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial court's judgment because the sale agreement was not entered for alienation of property but for a loan transaction.
Whether both Courts below were correct in not considering the issue of readiness and willingness based on the evidence adduced.
Whether the plaintiff proved she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract under Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
P. Annathai
- respondent
M. Mala
Coram
M. Govindaraj
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court