The High Court dismissed the second appeal in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform and observed that the suit was barred by limitation.
Second appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of courts below confirmed.
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.
SA.No.237 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.237 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
... Appellants
(Appellants 2 and 3 brought on record as legal heirs of the sole appellant deceased vide order of Court dated 06.01.2017 in C.M.P.No.19443 to 19445 of 2016 by TRNJ)
... Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code
against the Judgment and decree dated 16.06.2010 made in A.S.No.103 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
2003 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge of Coimbatore confirming the Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2002 made in O.S.No.564
of 1992 on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.S. Mukunth,Senior counsel for M/s .Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent -1 : No Appearance
For Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr.V. Sivakumar
For Respondent -4 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The instant second appeal has been filed at the instance of the sole plaintiff . The respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court.
2.For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to according to
their litigative status before the Trial Court below .
3.The brief averments which give rise to the instant second appeal is
that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a sale agreement on 19.05.1991, agreeing to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 41,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.31,000/- on various dates and
2/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
only Rs.10,000/- was due to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. The Sale deed ought to have been executed on 18.11.1991, but it was not done so. It appears that the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 04.11.1991 expressing his unwillingness to pursue with the sale agreement and wanted to have the refund of the advance amount. The plaintiff has filed a suit during 1992 and while the suit was pending, it appears that the plaintiff made an application for amendment of the prayer in I.A.No.21 of 2021 seeking the relief of specific performance and it was allowed on 30.04.2001.
5.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff' examined himself as P.W.1 and
one more witness was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1. On behalf of the plaintiff 10 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. On behalf of the defendants no documents were marked.
3/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
6.Both the Trial Court as well the First Appellate Court dismissed the
suit for specific performance on the finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
7.Heard both side counsel, this Court has given its anxious consideration to either side submissions.
8.The sum and substance of the contentions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, and that the amendment towards the prayer for specific performance, which was allowed in I.A.No.21 of 2021 would relate back to the date of filing of the suit, and that as a consequence the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance.
the attention of this Court to Ex.A5 legal notice dated on 04.11.1991. Wherein in paragraph no.10, it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not willing to
4/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
pursue the execution of the sale deed. Based on such stand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the same would exemplify and demonstrate the unwillingness of the plaintiff. Apart from the above submission the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would also take on another defence of limitation. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit for specific performance has to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of the completion of the time for performance.
5/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
closed.
14.12.2023
smn
Index: yes / no Neutral citation Speaking / Non speaking order
To
6/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
smn
S.A.No.237 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
7/8
SA.No.237 of 2011
14.12.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform part of the sale agreement at the relevant time.
Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Chinnappa Asari (deceased) and others
R. Brihman and others
C.kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
