Second appeal by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale covering the defendants' undivided 2/7 share. The High Court held the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and his entitlement to the claimed share, and upheld the first appellate court's reversal of the trial decree.
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.
S.A.No.810 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA S.A.No.810 of 2019
C. Sandirane S/o. A. Cannane @ A.Kannappan IAF Officer (Retd) No.9, Jaya Nagar, First Cross, Reddiyarpalayam, Puducherry 605 010
...Appellant
Vs.
Both are residing at No.29, Mariamman Koil Street Agaram Village, Koodapakkam Post Villianur Commune, Puducherry 605 010 ... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 05.09.2018 passed in A.S. No.12 of 2016, on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, reversing the
Page 1 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
decree and judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed in O.S.No.12 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.
For Appellant : Mr.M. Narayanaswamy For Respondents : Mr.A.Nambirajan and Joint vakalat for Mr. K. Venkateswaran
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.12/2007 on the file of
the Additional Subordinate Court, Pondicherry, and he filed the said suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants 1 and 2. The suit properties as described in the plaint are as follows:
which an undivided two seventh share viz., 6 kuzhies 4 veesams (3,744 square feet) of Ulavaikal village, Villianur Panchayat, Pondicherry.
Page 2 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
The total extent of both the items is mentioned as 19 kuzhies (10,944
square feet)
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the
present second appeal would also be indicated.
3.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
3.1. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement
of sale on 06.07.2006 (Ex.A1) in respect of the suit properties. The sale
consideration was fixed as Rs.16,500/- per kuzhi. On the date of sale agreement, the defendants received a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards advance.
The time fixed for the performance of contract was 90 days . However, the second defendant received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on
26.12.2006 by way of a cheque and issued a receipt (Ex.A3).
3.2. The defendants promised to hand over the original title
Page 3 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
deeds in respect of the suit properties and execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants also assured the plaintiff that they would obtain necessary relinquishment deeds from the other co-sharers of the suit properties. The extent of land mentioned in the sale agreement is 59 kuzhies 8 veesams.
deeds from the other co-sharers, the plaintiff agreed to purchase 2/7 share
i.e. 19 kuzhies from the defendants. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also issued a legal notice dated 25.10.2006 (Ex.A2) to the defendants. However, the defendants did not come forward to fulfill their part of the contract as per the sale agreement and hence the suit.
grounds:
i. All the allegations contained in the plaint are false.
ii. The suit is also barred by limitation.
Page 4 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
iii. The plaintiff did not pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the sale
agreement (Ex.A1).
iv. There is no mention about the co-sharers in the sale agreement
Ex.A1. The plaintiff had never shown his readiness and
willingness to perform his part of the contract.
the following issues:
Page 5 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
amount?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance
regarding 2/7th share of the defendants?"
Ex.A8. The defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves and three other
witnesses. However, no documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants.
record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide her decree and judgment dated 26.06.2015 on the following grounds:
measuring 59 kuzhies 8 veesams. However, the plaintiff is now
Page 6 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
claiming only 2/7 share in the suit properties as the defendants have not obtained the relinquishment deeds from the other cosharers.
the relinquishment deeds from their sisters and had also clandestinely sold 5/7 share to third parties through their uncle Ganesan.
S.A.No.810 of 2019
securing release deeds from the co-sharers.
Page 8 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
appellate court, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.
1) Whether the lower appellate court is right in refusing to grant the relief of specific performance in respect of the suit property on the ground that the respondents are having only limited share in the suit property overlooking the fact that the appellant has filed the suit for specific performance only for the respondents 2/7-th share alone?
2) Whether the lower appellate court is right in rejecting the relief of specific performance in favour of the appellant, even though it has been clearly found that the respondents have admitted the sale agreement Exhibit A1 and received a sum of Rs.59,000/- in pursuance of the sale agreement?
for the appellant and Mr.A.Nambirajan, learned counsel appearing for
Page 9 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
the respondents.
S.A.No.810 of 2019
understanding, the relevant portion in Ex.A1 sale deed is extracted hereunder:
',dW NjjpapypUe ; ; J 90 ehs ; fhyf ; nfLtpw ; Fs ; nrhj ; Jf ; Fwpa %yggj ; ; jpuq ; fs ; , fpua xhp[pdy ; gjjpuq ; fs ; ; , tpy ; yq ; f rhd ; wpjo ; , gllh fhg ; gp ;
MfpaitfSld ; nrhj ; ij rht tpy ; ; yq ; f Rj ; jpaha ; 1tJ eghfs ; ; 2-tJ egUf ; Nfh myyJ mth ; ; Fwg ; gpLk ; NtW egh ; fSf ; Nfh fpuak ; nraJ ju Kd ; tUk ; NghJ 2- ;
tJ egh ; ,d ; W Njjpapy ; 1-tJ eghfsplk ; ; nfhLjjpUf ; ; Fk ; mlthd ; ] ; ; njhif Nghf ghf ; fp fpuaj ; njhifia nrYj ; jp jd ; nrytpy ; fpuaggj ; ; jpuk ; jahh ; nra ; J fpuak ; nra ; Jnfhs ; s Ntz ; baJ. epyj ; jpid
rkgLj ; jpf ; nfhs ; sTk ; , mse ; J fy ; NghlTk ; , ghijfis rPhgLj ; ; jp mikj ; Jf ; nfhs ; sTk ; epyj ; jpid mgptpUjjp ; nra ; aTk ; 1-tJ egh ; fs ; 2-tJ egUf ; F rkkjk ; ; jUfpwhh ; fs ; . Nkw ; Fwpg ; gpl ; l nfLtpw ; Fk ; 2-tJ egh ; nrhj ; ijf ; fpuak ; nra ; J nfhs ; sj ; jahuhf ,Ue ; Jk ; , 1-tJ egh ; fpuak ; nra ; J nfhLf ; fj ; jtwpdhy ; 2-tJ egh ; ePjp eltbf ; if %yk ; jPh ; khdk ; ngw ; W fPo ; fz ; l
Page 11 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
nrhj ; ij Nfhhl ; ; %yk ; fpuak ; ngwWf ; ; nfhs ; s Ntz ; baJ."
Therefore, it is seen that getting the release deeds from the co-sharers is not a condition precedent for getting the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has not mentioned as to who are the other co-sharers.
12.1. It was admitted by both parties that as per the title deed,
the total extent of land is 67 kuzhies. However, the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into the agreement (Ex.A1) only with regard to 59 kuzhies 8 veesams. The plaintiff in the plaint had sought specific performance of contract in respect of 2/7 share in the total extent of 67 kuzhies. When the agreement itself speaks about 59 kuzhies 8 veesams, it is not known as to how the plaintiff is seeking for specific performance of contract in respect of 2/7 share in 67 kuzhies. As already observed, the plaintiff has not also mentioned the names of the other sharers and
Page 12 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
has not also explained as to how the defendants 1 and 2 would be getting
2/7 share.
12.2. The time for completing the contract was fixed as ninety days in Ex.A1sale agreement. As already observed securing release deeds from the co-sharers was not the condition precedent for executing the sale deed. In fact, there is no recital that the properties mentioned in Ex.A1 belong to other co-sharers also. In any event, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice only after the expiry of ninety days. Thus, the plaintiff has not shown his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The balance sale consideration was not also deposited at the time of filing the suit by the plaintiff to show his readiness. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that, after the issuance of legal notice (Ex.A2), the defendants received a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of a cheque as is seen from Ex.A3 receipt. He would therefore contend that time was not the essence of contract and therefore, it has to be held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Page 13 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
12.3. A perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff knew that the properties mentioned in Ex.A1 do not absolutely belong to the defendants and that there are other co-sharers. Despite this fact, the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants in respect of the properties measuring 57 kuzhies 8 veesams. Both the plaintiff and the defendants did not make a mention in Ex.A1 that there are other co-sharers. Only in the suit notice (Ex.A2), the plaintiff has requested the defendants to get the release deeds executed by the other co-sharers. This notice was issued after the expiry of ninety days period mentioned in the sale agreement. In the circumstances, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In any event, as already observed, the plaintiff has not established how the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 2/7 share in the total extent of 67 kuzhies. Thus the plaintiff has not proved any of his contentions in the plaint. The first appellate court had infact analysed all these aspects in its well reasoned judgment. Therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Page 14 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
21.12.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order bga
Page 15 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
To
2. The Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Page 16 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
S.A.No.810 of 2019
21.12.2024
Page 17 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
S.A.No.810 of 2019
R.HEMALATHA, J.
Today, the matter has been listed under the caption 'for being
mentioned'.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents.
3. It appears that in the result portion, clause numbers (iii) and (iv)
have been typed inadvertently. Hence, from Paragraph number 13, clause numbers (iii) and (iv) alone shall be deleted and all other aspects shall remain intact.
4. Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy after deleting the
above portions in the Judgment made in S.A.No.810 of 2019, dated
21.12.2024.
Page 18 of 20
S.A.No.810 of 2019
27.01.2025
vum
Page 19 of 20
2 issues framed by the court
Was the plaintiff entitled to specific performance of only the defendants' 2/7 share despite the limited share?
Did the plaintiff show readiness and willingness to perform his part of the sale agreement?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Sandirane
P. Govinda Gounder
P. Kumaraguru
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
