Dismissed

N.Kolandasamy(Died) v. R.Kalayanasundaram

Madras HC15 Dec 2022AS/913/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal challenging a decree in a suit for specific performance. The High Court held the detained endorsement extending the timeline was fraudulent and forged. Finding time was the essence of the contract, the Court ruled the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, dismissing the appeal and confirming the originated decree. The only direction to correct was regarding the inclusion o

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Judgment and decree of the District Court confirmed with correction regarding the 6th Defendant's necessary party status.

N.Kolandasamy(Died) Vs R.Kalayanasundaram — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶8

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶9

N.Kolandasamy (died) 2. K.Venkatesh 3. D.Kamalaveni Appellants

¶10

¶11

R.Kalyanasundaram 2. S.R.Chandrasekaran

¶12

Radha 4. Mouli 5. Brinda 6. Vasantha Ganapathi Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgement and decree, dated, 26.08.2010, passed in OS.No.64 of 2008,

¶14

by the I Additional District Court, Erode.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.N.Manokaran

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.T.P.Manoharan, SC for Mr.V.P.Jotheeswaran

¶17

1/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶19

JUDGEMENT

¶20

(Judgement of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶21

The unsuccessful Plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.64 of 2008, on the file of

¶22

the I Additional District Court, Erode, is the appellant in the above appeal.

¶23

The brief facts, which are leading to filing of this appeal and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-

¶24

(a) The deceased 1^st Appellant, as sole Plaintiff, filed the suit in OS.No.64 of 2008, for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 15.05.2006 under Ex.A1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the agreement of sale dated 15.05.2006, was executed by the Defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is further stated that the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as advance on the date of the sale agreement and that the Defendants agreed to execute the registered sale deed, after receiving the balance of the sale consideration, namely, Rs.20,00,000/- on or before the end of Aypasi (Tamil month), corresponding to 16.11.2006. It is also the definite case of the Plaintiff that time is not the essence of the contract as the parties did

¶25

2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶27

not intend to have the time as the essence of the contract. It was contended that the 2nd Defendant agreed to execute the sale deed along with his son, the 6th Defendant, who is not a party to the agreement. It was also pleaded by the Plaintiff that ever since the date of the sale agreement, the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration to get the sale deed registered. Even though the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to execute the sale deed, after tendering the entire balance of the sale consideration on several occasions, the Defendants were postponing the execution of the sale deed under one pretext or other with ill motive. It was contended by the Plaintiff that on 28.7.2006, the Defendants 1 to 3 received a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the Plaintiff towards balance of consideration and consciously extended the time for performance of the contract till 16.03.2008. It was also pleaded that the Defendants 1 to 3 have made an endorsement on the back side of the first page of the agreement of sale under Ex.A1. Interestingly, the Plaintiff also pleaded that the price of the lands went up considerably after the agreement and that the Defendants, who developed an idea of not performing the contract and desirous of

¶28

3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶30

selling the property to some other party for a higher price, issued a notice on 18.01.2008, containing false allegations. Stating that the Defendants had deliberately suppressed the payment of additional advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the Plaintiff came forward with the suit, with specific averments that the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the Defendants have no right to terminate the contract. The Plaintiff also issued a legal notice.

¶31

(b)The suit was resisted by the 2nd Defendant, by filing a detailed written statement. The 2nd Defendant admitted the agreement of sale dated, 15.05.2006 and its contents. Though the Defendants admitted that the agreement was executed, fixing the sale consideration at Rs.25 lakhs and the receipt of Rs.5 lakhs as advance, the specific case of Defendants in the written statement is that time is the essence of the agreement of sale and that the Plaintiff, who has failed to pay the balance of the sale consideration, within the time stipulated, is not entitled to seek specific performance of the contract. It is stated in the written statement that the Defendants decided to sell the suit property only to meet the

¶32

4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶34

marriage expenses of the son and daughter of the 1st Defendant and the son of the 2nd Defendant who are Defendants 4 to 6. It is further contended that the Defendants had performed the marriages with great difficulty as the Plaintiff did not pay the balance of the sale consideration as agreed. The Defendants have specifically denied the alleged endorsement on 28.07.2006 on the back side of the agreement under Ex.A1 and the payment of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as contended by the Plaintiff. The extension of time pleaded by the Plaintiff on the basis of the endorsement dated 28.7.2006 is also specifically denied. The defence taken by the Defendants is more explicit and the 2nd Defendant has seriously disputed the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff. Having regard to the various attending circumstances, It was also contended in the written statement that the 2nd Defendant is not party to the sale agreement and that therefore, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. It is further stated that no relief can be claimed against the 2nd Defendant. The written statement filed by the 2nd Defendant was adopted by the Defendants 1 and 3 to 5.

¶35

¶36

5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶38

issues. Before the Trial Court, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and one Eswaramoorthy, the person who signed the sale agreement under Ex.A1 as a witness, as PW.2 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the Defendants, the 1st Defendant was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

¶39

(d)The Trial Court specifically found that the endorsement under Ex.A2 is not proved to be genuine. Referring to the fact that the endorsement is found to be typed in two different fonts and the endorsement in respect of extension of time in the last two lines is an alteration, the Trial Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the endorsement under Ex.A2 found in Ex.A1, extending the period of performance is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the Plaintiff has not proved the endorsement as the one which was consciously made by the Defendants. The Trial Court then held that the Plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as he failed to pay the balance of the sale consideration as agreed under the sale agreement under Ex.A1. Though the Trial Court found that the 6th Defendant is a co-owner and that the Defendants have agreed to get the signature from the 6th

¶40

6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶42

Defendant or a General Power of Attorney deed from the 6^th Defendant to complete the transaction, it held that the suit is bad for misjoinder of the 6^th Defendant and that the sale agreement is not binding on the 6^th Defendant.

¶43

(e) On the question as to whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the Plaintiff, the Trial Court, having regard to several facts and circumstances of the case, held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. However, on the basis of the admission of the Defendants that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants 1 to 5, alternate relief was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% pa. from the Defendants 1 to 5. The Trial Court also created a charge over the suit property till payment. The suit was dismissed in respect of the other relief. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Trial Court, the Plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

¶44

During the pendency of this appeal, the sole Appellant/ Plaintiff died

¶45

and the Appellants 2 and 3 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the sole Appellant, by order dated, 30.09.2022.

¶46

7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶48

This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

¶49

The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that time is not the essence of the contract as mere stipulation in the agreement does not make the time as the essence of the contract. The learned counsel then submitted that the finding of the Trial Court, ignoring the endorsement under Ex.A2 made in the sale agreement under Ex.A1, is erroneous, since the Defendants have voluntarily extended the time for performance of the contract and that the Plaintiff has proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have granted the relief of specific performance and that the Trial Court miserably failed to consider that the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded and proved his readiness and willingness in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that the Defendants, who have extended the time, cannot contend that the Plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, particularly, when it is not their case that the Plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract within the extended time.

¶50

The learned counsel for the Appellants then pointed out that the

¶51

8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶53

signatures found in the sale agreement Ex.A1 and the disputed signatures found below the endorsement under Ex.A2 were sent for expert opinion and the report obtained from the expert is marked as Ex.A5 and that the Trial Court, after recording the fact that the opinion of the expert is in favour of the Plaintiff, has ignored the relevance of the report and that therefore, the impugned judgement is vitiated for the omission to consider the opinion of the expert. The learned counsel, referring to the documents under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.B4, contended that the 6th Defendant is also bound by the sale agreement as it is admitted that the 6^th Defendant executed a Power of Attorney deed in favour of his father to fulfil the promise made by the 6^th Defendant's father to the Plaintiff under Ex.A1. The learned counsel, referring the findings of the Trial Court, regarding the material alteration, submitted that the Defendants have not even pleaded material alteration and that therefore, the finding of the Trial Court as to the genuineness of endorsement under Ex.A2 is erroneous.

¶54

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents made his submissions to sustain the findings of the Trial Court on all issues, by citing several precedents, to buttress his arguments that time is the

¶55

9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶57

essence of the sale agreement under Ex.A1, particularly, having regard to the terms of the sale agreement.

¶58

On the pleadings of the parties and having considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to frame the following issues for determination:-

¶59

(a) Whether the endorsement under Ex.A2 made in the sale agreement under Ex.A1 is a material alteration and whether the endorsement under Ex.A2 is valid and binding on the Plaintiff?

¶60

(b)Whether time is the essence of the sale agreement under Ex.A1, dated 15.05.2006?

¶61

(c) Whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the sale agreement under Ex.A1?

¶62

(d)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance?

¶63

(e) Whether the 6^th Defendant is a necessary party and the sale agreement under Ex.A1 is binding on the 6^th Defendant?

¶64

(f) To what other the Plaintiff is entitled?

¶65

9. Issue (a):- In the written statement, a specific stand is taken by the Defendants that the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.07.2006 is false and that the Defendants never extended the period upto 16.03.2008 as contended by the Plaintiff. It is specifically stated in the written statement that the alleged endorsement under Ex.A2 is a created and

¶66

10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶68

manipulated one. Therefore, the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the endorsement under Ex.A2.

¶69

10.It is relevant to pointed out that the Plaintiff did not issue any suit

¶70

notice before filing the suit. It is the Defendants, who sent the first notice on 18.01.2008, demanding performance of the contract by the Plaintiff in terms of the sale agreement under Ex.A1. It was only thereafter the Plaintiff issued a reply notice on 15.02.2008, stating that the time specified in the agreement under Ex.A1 was extended till 16.03.2008 upon receipt of a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the endorsement was signed by the Defendants 1 to 3. DW.1 has also categorically deposed that the endorsement is a forgery and manipulation. The Trial Court has given a specific finding after considering the fact that the endorsement is typed by using two different typewriters.

¶71

11.This Court carefully the considered the document Ex.A1. The findings of the Trial Court appears to be correct. From the endorsement under Ex.A2, it is seen that with regard to the extension of time, the following lines are typed:-

¶72

“,e;j fpua vf;hpbkz;od; tha;jh tUfpd;w 16/03/2008

¶73

11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶75

njjp tiu ePof;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/@

¶76

A perusal of the above endorsement indicates that it is typed separately.

¶77

Though the font appears to be the same, the said endorsement in the last two lines might be a subsequent insertion, as the font impression of the said two lines is lighter than the other lines typed above, which are found with a dark impression. The double line space alignment of the said two lines is not accurate and there is a narrow line space at the left end of the said two lines. In other words, from the improper alignment and different font impressions (light and dark), the subsequent part of the said endorsement of two lines extending time might be a subsequent insertion.

¶78

12.One of us took a great pain in comparing the signatures. On comparing the disputed signatures of the Defendants 1 to 3 found below the endorsement under Ex.A2 and the signatures of the Defendants 1 to 3 found in the sale agreement under Ex.A1, it is seen that they are not identical and there are differences in the manner, flow, curves and style, in which the signatures are written.

¶79

13.As regards the signature of the 1st Defendant found in the endorsement under Ex.A2 and that of Ex.A1, we found, while seeing with naked eye,

¶80

12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶81

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶82

that the letters, “l”, “y', “d”, in Ex.A2 endorsement, are different and not

¶83

similar with the signatures in Ex.A1. Like wise, the signature of the 2nd Defendant, S.R.Chandrasekaran, found in the sale agreement Ex.A1 and the signature of the 2nd Defendant found in the endorsement under Ex.A2 are also not similar and identical. While signatures of R.Chandrasekaran is uniform in Ex.A1, the signature in Ex.A2 endorsement is found with several differences, particularly the initial letter, “R” and almost every letter in the name including the last part of signature. The manner and style, in which the signatures of the Defendants 1 and 2 as found in Ex.A2 are different and do not tally with each other. Similarly differences are found in the signatures of the 3rd Defendant in Ex.A2. The glaring and apparent differences in the signatures found Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 have not been referred to and explained by the Expert in his report, which is marked as Ex.A5.

¶84

14.This Court and the Honourable Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

¶85

the evidence of an hand writing expert is not final and conclusive having regard to several scientific factors. In the present case, the expert opinion, which was received in a sealed cover, is marked as Ex.A5. It appears that a memo was filed by the Defendants 1 to 5 to permit the

¶86

13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶88

Defendants to inspect the expert opinion on 04.06.2010. Therefore, the said report has been inspected by the learned counsel for the Defendants as well as the learned counsel for the Appellants. The Trial Court, on the memo, has simply passed an order permitting inspection of the expert report. However, marking of a document cannot lead to an inference that an expert opinion is admitted by the Defendants. Since the evidence of a hand writing expert is a weak evidence, the duty cast upon the Court while relying upon evidence of an expert cannot be ignored. In the present case, the expert was not called upon to mark the document and no opportunity was given to the Defendants to cross examine the expert especially when the document was not marked through any one. The learned counsel for the Appellants is unable to explain as to how the report of the expert is admissible without calling the expert as a witness. In the absence of an opportunity to cross examine the expert, this Court is unable to consider the opinion of the expert report under Ex.A5 as relevant to prove the case of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court is therefore justified in not placing reliance on the report.

¶89

15.The agreement of sale under Ex.A1 specifically refers to the time limit, within which the Plaintiff should pay the balance of the sale

¶90

14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶92

consideration. However, as per the endorsement, the time was extended till 16.03.2008. In other words, the time is extended by 15 months without assigning any reason. In the present case, a peculiar plea found in the plaint is relevant. The Plaintiff in paragraph 8 of the plaint has stated as follows:-

¶93

“The price of the lands went up considerably after the agreement. The Defendants developed an idea of not to perform their part of the agreement and to sell it to some other parties for higher price. With the evil idea in mind and to get rid of the agreement, the Defendants 1 to 5 on 18.01.2008 caused a registered notice to be issued to the Plaintiff containing false allegations.”

¶94

During the evidence, the Plaintiff would further depose to the effect that

¶95

time was not the essence of the contract as the Defendants had to secure

¶96

the presence of the 6th Defendant or to get Power of Attorney deed from the 6th Defendant. The case of the Plaintiff cannot be reconciled having regard to the admitted facts and anyone will get a bona fide doubt as to the genuineness of the endorsement extending time till 16.03.20078.

¶97

The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the endorsement under Ex.A2 is a material alteration based on assessment of evidence. This Court is unable to interfere with the findings of Trial Court as this Court

¶98

also on independent assessment of documents is of the view that the endorsement is forged and the endorsement under Ex.A2 is

¶99

15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶101

manipulated and the signatures found in Ex.A2 are not the signatures of the Defendants 1 to 3. Accordingly, the issue (a) is decided against the Appellants.

¶102

16.Issues (b) and (c):- In AIR 1993 SC 1742:1993 1 SCC 519 (Chand

¶103

Rani (Dead) by LRs Vs. Kamal Rani (Dead) by LRs), a Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the issues and held that the question whether time is the essence of the contract can be decided from the terms of the contract or from the conduct of the parties or by relevant circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement. In a similar situation, the terms of the agreement has been held to be a contract where time is the essence of the agreement of sale.

¶104

17.In the present case, in the absence of endorsement under Ex.A2, there is no difficulty for this Court to hold that time is the essence of the agreement, particularly, having regard to the following terms in the sale agreement under Ex.A1:-

¶105

@,jdoapw;fz;l !;jhtu brhj;ij ehsJ njjp ek;kpy; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fsplk; U:gha; 25.00.000-= (U:gha; ,Ugj;jpIe;J yl;rk;)f;F Rj;jf;fpuaj;jpw;F ngrp Koj;J ehsJ njjp ,J fpuaj;jpw;F ml;thd;rhf 6 yf;fkpl;lthplk; ,Ue;J 1 Kjy; 5 tiu

¶106

16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶107

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶108

yf;fkpl;llth;fs; ehsJ njjp ,jdoapw;fz;l rhl;rpfspd; Kd;dpiyapy; ml;thd;rhf buhf;fk; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ U:gha; 5.00.000-= (U:gha; Ie;J yl;rk;) kPjpfpuaj;bjhifahd U:gha; 20.00.000/- (U:gha; ,UgJ yl;rj;ij)Ia[k; ,jdLj;j tUfpd;w Ig;grp khjk; filrpf;Fs; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fsplk; buhf;fkhf brYj;jp jd; brhe;j brytpy; ,J fpuaj;ij Koj;Jf;bfhs;s fl;Lg;gl;lth;/ mt;thW i& bfLtpw;Fs; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; fpuag;ghf;fp g{uht[k; 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fsplk; brYj;jp jd; brhe;j brytpy; ,J fpuaj;ij Koj;Jf;bfhs;s jtwpdhy; ehsJ njjp ,J fpuaj;jpw;F ml;thd;rhf bfhLj;j bjhif g{uht[k; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; ,He;jtplj;jf;fJ/ i& bfLtpw;Fs; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; fpuag;ghf;fp g{uht[k; buhf;fkhf brYj;jp 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fsplk; bjhif bgw;W bfhz;L 6 yf;fkpl;lth; bgaUf;nfh my;yJ mth;nfhUk; ,ju egh;fs; bgah;fSf;nfh rh;t tpy;y';f Rj;jpahf fpuaKk; RthjPdKk; bra;J bfhLf;f 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fs; fl;Lg;gl;lth;fs;/ mt;thW i& bfLtpw;Fs; 6 yf;fkpl;lth; fpua ghf;fp g{uht[k; 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fsplk; brYj;jp 1 Kjy; 5 tiu yf;fkpl;lth;fs; bjhif bgw;Wf;bfhz;L rh;t tpy;y';f Rj;jpahf fpuaKk; RthjPdKk; bra;J bfhLf;f kWj;jhnyh my;yJ rhf;Fnghf;F brhd;dhnyh kPjpfpuaj;bjhifis rk;ge;jg;gl;l nfhh;l;oy; fl;o nfhh;l;od; K:yk; fpuaKk; RthjPdKk; bra;J bfhs;thh;/ mjdhy; 6 yf;fkpl;ltUf;F Vw;gLk; rfy fc&;l ec&;l bryt[fSf;Fk; 1 Kjy; 5 riu yf;fkpl;lth;fns bghWg;ghspfs;/ fpuaj;njjpapy; 2 yf;fkpl;lth; jdJ nk$h; kfid fl;Lg;gLj;jp fpuak; bra;JbfhLf;f fl;Lg;gl;lth;/”

¶109

Therefore, under the sale agreement, Ex.A1, the Plaintiff has paid only a

¶110

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance of the

¶111

sale consideration on or before the end of Aypasi (Tamil month),

¶112

17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶114

corresponding to 16.11.2006. This Court and the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the time can be made as the essence of the contract by specific recitals in the agreement. The law is also settled that the time that was specified for performance by the parties should be a relevant factor to decide the issue. Even though it is not necessary in all the cases to hold that time is the essence of the contract, merely because time is specified in the agreement, on the facts of the present case, this Court is unable to ignore the time limit and accept the case of the Plaintiff that time is not the essence of the sale agreement under Ex.A1 especially having regard to the attending circumstances. The specific case of Defendants that the suit agreement was entered into for mobilising funds for performing three marriages in the family is more probable especially when it is proved that marriages of Defendants 4 to 6 were performed shortly after the agreement.

¶115

18.Admittedly, the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part

¶116

of the contract and it is not even his case that he was ready with the money and he was willing to perform his part of the contract as agreed under Ex.A1. Since the Plaintiff relies upon the endorsement under Ex.A2, there is no difficulty for this Court to hold that the Plaintiff is not

¶117

18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶119

ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶120

19.It has been repeatedly held by Courts that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, mandates that the Plaintiff should aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in a suit for specific performance. Therefore, in the present case, readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff is not in accordance with the explanation (ii) to Section 16(c) of the Act. Therefore, this Court holds that time is the essence of the sale agreement under Ex.A1 and that the Plaintiff has neither proved nor averred readiness and willingness in terms of the sale agreement under Ex.A1. Accordingly, issues (b) and (c) are also answered against the Appellants.

¶121

20.Issue (d):- Even assuming that the Plaintiff has averred readiness and willingness, this Court has already held that time is the essence of the sale agreement under Ex.A1. The Defendants have marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, marriage invitations for the marriages of the Defendants 4 to 6. It is the specific case of the Defendants that the value of the suit property was more even on the date of the sale agreement and that the Defendants agreed to sell the property as they were in urgent need of money for performing three marriages one after another. Ex.B1 to Ex.B3

¶122

19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶123

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶124

also shows that within a short span of seven months, three marriages had been performed by the Defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, the case of the Defendants is more probable and believable. The Plaintiff has gone to the extent of manipulating the document to suit his convenience. When the endorsement under Ex.A2 is found to be fabricated by the Plaintiff, as a necessary corollary, the case of the Plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract cannot be accepted.

¶125

21.In terms of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, the Plaintiff cannot

¶126

claim the relief of specific performance without satisfying the mandatory requirements under Section 16(c) of the Act. It is also to be noted that the conduct of the Plaintiff in ignoring the time specified in the sale agreement under Ex.A1 on the basis of the endorsement under Ex.A2 is fraudulent and the Plaintiff, after realising that he has failed to perform his part of the contract, found a way out to fabricate the document by inserting the endorsement under Ex.A2. The Trial Court has gone into details and discussed several aspects and the reasons of the Trial Court are also supported by documents and evidence. This Court holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance. Accordingly, issue (d) is also answered against

¶127

20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶128

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶129

the Appellants.

¶130

Issue (e):- The 6th Defendant is admittedly a co-owner. Having regard to the admission of the Defendants that the 2nd Defendant has already obtained a Power of Attorney deed from the 6th Defendant, even though the 6th Defendant is not a party to the agreement, the suit cannot be dismissed for misjoinder of the 6^th Defendant. Since the 6^th Defendant is a co-owner, he is a necessary party in the suit and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court on this aspect alone needs to be corrected. However, this will not affect the judgement and decree of the Trial Court in any way. Accordingly, issue (6) is answered.

¶131

23.The Trial Court has granted the alternate relief for refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the judgement and decree. The Defendants have not preferred any appeal as against the alternative relief and hence, no interference of this Court is warranted on this aspect. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

and

21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

AS.No.913 of 2010

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

Srcm

24.In fine, this Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. The judgement and decree, dated, 26.08.2010, passed in OS.No.64 of 2008, by the I Additional District Court, Erode, is confirmed.

¶140

(S.S.S.R.J.) & (A.A.N.J.) 15.12.2022

¶141

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm

¶142

¶143

The I Additional District Court, Erode

¶144

The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madras High Court

¶145

AS.No.913 of 2010

¶146

22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Kolandasamy(Died) v. R.Kalayanasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kolandasamy(Died) v. R.Kalayanasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishna Naidu Vs Vatsala

S. Manickam Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu, Rep by the

R.Jagan Vs S.v.Jayakumar

The Secretary Vs Ramasamy (Died)

Mr.Chinnasamy Vs P.Shanmugam

Bhuvaneswari, Vs S.Balasubramaniam