L.Muni Reddy Vs Kodhanda Reddy — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2025)

L.Muni Reddy Vs Kodhanda Reddy — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal dismissed with directions: (i) plaintiffs entitled to specific performance of the re-conveyance agreement Ex.A2; (ii) plaintiffs to pay 9% interest on Rs.2,50,000/- for 07.07.2009 to 28.02.2016 to the credit of O.S.No.64 of 2007, Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur; the 1st defendant entitled to withdraw the sale consideration with accrued interest; (iii) plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit properties (2 items, 0.76 cents) after execution of the sale deed by the 1st and 4th defendants, or through Court on failure; (iv) plaintiffs entitled to mutation of revenue records; (v) plaintiffs entitled to declaration that sale deeds Document Nos.5726/2010 and 3188/2013 of SRO, Thenkanikottai are null and void; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.653 of 2024) closed.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law: whether the courts below were right in decreeing the suit for specific performance when the plaintiffs allegedly approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing issuance of Ex.A9 and instituted the suit with considerable delay after issuance of Ex.A3 (notice dated 12.05.2005 to the 1st defendant and Chandra Reddy). +2 more

Court's answer

The suit filed on 08.06.2007, after Ex.A3 notice dated 12.05.2005 and within the five-year period expiring 06.07.2009, cannot be treated as belated; the substantial question of law (delay/unclean hands) is answered against the 1st defendant.

Ratio / Principle

Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement dated 07.07.2004 stands proved as having been executed by the 1st defendant, scribed by P.W.2 (Nanjunda Reddy) and attested by the same witnesses as Ex.A1; his denial was made to escape liability under Ex.A2.

Key takeaways

The signature found in Ex.A2, compared with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant, is that of the 1st defendant.ratio¶14
Stamp-paper numbers 4645 to 4651 (Ex.A1) and 4652 (Ex.A2), purchased at one stretch, show both documents were executed on the same day (07.07.2004), probabilising the plaintiffs' case.ratio¶15
Non-production of the original of Ex.A1 sale deed (despite the direction in I.A.No.811 of 2016) leads to an adverse inference against the 1st defendant.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. Kalaimathi, J.) dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2023 in A.S.No.12 of 2020 (Additional District Court, Hosur), which had confirmed with modification the decree in O.S.No.64 of 2007 granting specific performance of a re-conveyance agreement (Ex.A2 dated 07.07.2004) executed the same day as the sale deed (Ex.A1) by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. HELD: (i) execution of Ex.A2 was proved through the scribe P.W.2 (Nanjunda Reddy), common attestors, the matching admitted signature of the 1st defendant, and sequential stamp-paper numbers (4645-4651 and 4652) showing same-day execution; the denial of execution was made to escape liability; (ii) non-production of the original Ex.A1 despite the direction in I.A.No.811 of 2016 attracted an adverse inference against the 1st defendant; (iii) the plaintiffs proved continuous readiness and willingness - Ex.A3 notice dated 12.05.2005 issued within the five-year period expiring 06.07.2009, suit presented 08.06.2007, and consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited in court - so the substantial question of law on delay and unclean hands was answered against the 1st defendant; (iv) defendants 2 to 4, being close relatives of the 1st defendant (the 2nd defendant being the son of attestor Krishnappa), were not bona fide purchasers, their inter se sale deeds were sham and nominal and hit by lis pendens under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act 1882; (v) modification ordered: sale consideration and interest payable to the 1st defendant, with the 1st and 4th defendants directed to jointly execute the re-conveyance sale deed; plaintiffs to pay 9% interest on Rs.2,50,000/- (07.07.2009 to 28.02.2016); possession (2 items, 0.76 cents) and mutation granted; Documents Nos.5726/2010 and 3188/2013 of SRO, Thenkanikottai declared null and void; no costs; C.M.P.No.653 of 2024 closed. Reliance placed on Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 146 and K.Prakash v. B.R.Sampath Kumar, (2015) 1 SCC 597 on the plaintiff's burden of continued readiness and willingness.

S.A.No.22 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :22.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

S.A.No.22 of 2024

and

C.M.P.No.653 of 2024

1.L.Muni Reddy …1^st Appellant/1^st Appellant/1^st Defendant

2.K.Sreenivasa Reddy

3.Ramesh Reddy

4.Radhamma ...Appellants 2 to 4/Respondents 4 to 6/ Defendants 2 to 4

Versus

1.Thiru Kodhanda Reddy

2.Thiru Venkatesh Reddy

3.Thiru Muni Reddy

S/o.Kodhanda Reddy

Shanthamma (Died) …Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff 1,2 & 4

PRAYER : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2023 made in A.S.No.12 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur, in confirming the modification of the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.2019 made in O.S.No.64 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur.

For Appellants : Mrs.V.Srimathi

For Respondents : Mr.R.Jayaprakash

1 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2023 made in A.S.No.12 of 2020 by the Additional District Court, Hosur.

2.Parties are indicated herein as per their litigate status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3.1.According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belongs to the 1^st plaintiff by virtue of sale deed in Doc.No.2631/1993 of S.R.O., Hosur, and the 2^nd , 4^th plaintiffs and deceased Raja Reddy are the children of the 1^st and 3^rd plaintiffs. The suit properties were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The said Raja Reddy died a year ago, as a bachelor leaving behind his mother Shanthamma as his legal heir who also died during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff Nos.1, 2 & 4 and the deceased Raja Reddy executed a sale dead in favour of the 1^st defendant as regards the suit properties on 07.07.2004 for valid consideration and the possession of the suit properties were delivered to the 1^st defendant. On the same day – on 07.07.2004, the 1^st defendant as per oral agreement executed an agreement of re-conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs and deceased Raja Reddy, agreeing to re-convey the properties covered in the sale deed with a condition that the plaintiffs had to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the 1^st

2 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

defendant, after the expiry of two years and before the completion of 5 years, that is on or before 07.07.2007.

3.2. Subsequent to the execution of sale deed dated 07.07.2004 in favour of the 1^st defendant, the 1^st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs asked the 1^st defendant to receive a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and to execute the re-conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In the month of May 2005, the 1^st defendant was making arrangements to sell the suit properties in favour of Chandra Reddy. The 1^st defendant purchased the suit properties with a condition to re-convey the properties to the plaintiffs.

3.3. The 1^st defendant fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant on 11.06.2007. The 2^nd defendant with knowledge about the sale deed and re-conveyance agreement has taken a fraudulent sale deed from the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant is the son of witness Krishna Reddy who has attested in both documents the sale deed as well as the re-conveyance deed. The 2^nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit properties and the 1^st defendant has no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2^nd defendant.

3.4. During the pendency of the suit, the 2^nd defendant executed the

3 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

sale deed dated 06.12.2010 in favour of the 3^rd defendant in respect of the suit properties and the 3^rd defendant in turn executed a sale deed in favour of 4^th defendant on 20.05.2013. These sale transactions were made by the defendants to deprive the rights of plaintiffs who made those transactions and they are not valid in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs.

3.5. The plaintiffs caused to issue to legal notice to the 1^st defendant wherein the date of sale is wrongly typed as 06.07.2004 (Ex.A1) instead of 07.07.2004. The 1^st defendant is bound to execute a re-conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which has been deposited by the plaintiffs into the Court. The suit is laid for granting of direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs Nos.1, 2 and 4 in terms of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 07.07.2004, after receiving sale consideration which is deposited into Court.

4.Despite the receipt of summons, 2^nd defendant neither appeared nor engage a counsel and he remained ex-parte before the trial Court.

5.Contending contra, the 1^st defendant would aver that he did not execute re-conveyance agreement in favour of the plaintiffs on 07.07.2004. He does not know Tamil or English language and the sale deed dated 07.07.2004 is drafted in English language at the time of execution of sale deed, signature

4 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

of the 1^st defendant was obtained by the plaintiffs in the blank papers by stating that the same is required for the transfer of patta. The 1^st defendant apprehends that the said signed blank papers have been fabricated as document by the plaintiffs. The 1^st defendant never agreed to re-convey the properties to the plaintiffs two years after the execution of sale deed by the plaintiffs and before five years from the date of execution of sale deed. Based on the forged document-re-conveyance agreement, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for any relief. In order to grab the properties unlawfully from the defendants, the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs.

6.On behalf of 3^rd and 4^th defendant, it has been averred that the 3^rd defendant had purchased lands in R.S.Nos.47/2 and 47/3 of Komaranapalli Village from the 2^nd defendant for valid consideration of Rs.82,000/- on 06.12.2010. Since the date of purchase, the 3^rd defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and sold the said lands to the 4^th defendant herein on 20.05.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,04,000/-.

6.1.The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the 4^th defendant on the said date. On receipt of notice from the Court, it came to be known to them that the suit has been pending before the Court as regards the properties purchased by them. As the market value of the property purchased

5 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

by the defendants is very high, in order to grab money from the defendants the plaintiffs colluded with the 1^st and 2^nd defendants and filed the present suit.

7.Based on the divergent pleading relevant contentions, issues were framed by the trial Court.

At trial, in order to substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiffs’ side,

two witnesses have been examined and nine documents have been marked. Ex.A1 dated 07.07.2004 is the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 and the deceased Raja Reddy in favour of the 1^st defendant (certified copy). Ex.A2 is dated 07.07.2004 is the re-conveyance agreement executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of plaintiffs 1, 2 & 4 and the deceased Raja Reddy. On the defendants' side, the 1^st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document as marked.

9.Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for either sides, the Trial Court concluded that the 1^st defendant has sold the property to the 2^nd defendant, who is none other than the son of attestor Krishnappa who has attested both in the sale deed as well as in the agreement for reconveyance and the further sale deeds executed during the pendency of the suit are not valid in the eye of law and ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit.

6 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

Aggrieved, the 1^st defendant preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.12/2020 before the Additional District Court, Hosur. Upon consideration of trial Court records and after hearing the arguments advanced by either sides, the 1^st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of he trial Court with modification in respect of the relief of declaration regarding sale deed Document Nos.5726/2010 and 3188/2013, thereby relief of declaration regarding sale deeds was dismissed.

11.The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-

Are the Courts below right in decreeing the suit for specific performance, when the plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the issuance of Ex.A.9 and instituting the suit with a considerable delay after issuance of Ex.A.3 (The office copy of the notice issued by plaintiff's counsel on 12.05.2005 to the 1^st defendant and one Mr.Chandra Reddy)?

12.It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that Ex.A1-sale deed and Ex.A2re-conveyance agreement were executed on the same day on 07.07.2004. On a careful perusal of cross examination of P.W.1, question is posed to him to the effect that the document number of Ex.A1-sale deed is not mentioned in Ex.A2 and he has answered that the document number of the registered

7 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

document was not available to the parties on the date of registration. Of course, it is the matter of common knowledge that on the date of registration, document number details may not be made available to the parties to the document. Therefore the explanation given by P.W.1 in this regard is acceptable.

13.Execution of Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement is denied by the 1^st defendant. Therefore, Ex.A2 has to be closely scrutinized in all aspects. Ex.A2 contains three papers (one stamp paper and two green papers). The details in Ex.A2 is typed. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1 one Nanjunda Reddy scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 has been examined as P.W.2.

The evidence of P.W.2 is culled out and given hereunder:-

“///vd;dplk ; fhl;lg;gLk; th/rh/M/1 fpuag;gj;jpuk; 07/07/2004 njjpapl;l fpuag;gj;jpuk; vd;dhy; vGjg;gl;ljhFk;/ nfhjz;l bul;oa[k; mtuJ gps;isfSk ; nrh;e;J Kdpbul;o vd;gtUf;F vGjp itf;fg;gl;l Mtzk; MFk;/ ,e;j Mtzj;jpy; rhl;rpfshf fpUt&;zh bul;o. fpUt&;zg;gh vd;gtUk; rhl;rpfshf ifbahg;gk; bra;Js;shh;fs;/ ,e;j fpiua Mtzk; (Ex.A2) vGjg;gl;l mnj njjpapy; rk;kjg; gj;jpuk; xd;W vGjg;gl;lJ/ 07/07/2004 njjpapy; Kdpbul;o. nfhjz;l bul;of;Fk ; mtuJ gps;isfSf;Fk; vGjpf;bfhLj;j rk;kjg; gj;jpuk; MFk;/ ,e;j rk;kjg; gj;jpuj;ij ehd ; jhd jahhpj;Js;nsd;/ ,e;j gj;jpuj;jpYk ; fpUt&;zh bul;o.

8 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

fpUt&;zg;gh rhl;rpfshf ifbahg;gk; bra;Js;shh;fs;///”

During the cross examination of P.W.2 no details advantageous to the

1^st defendant was elucidated.

14.It is stated that yet another witness attested in Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement-Krishnappa passed away. The attested witness Krishnappa is the father of the 2^nd defendant. The signatures found in Ex.A2 (3 papers) when thoroughly compared with the admitted signatures of 1^st respondent, it is clear that the signature found in Ex.A2 is the signature of the 1^st defendant. P.W.2 has spoken about the execution of Ex.A2 re-conveyance document stands proved. In Ex.A1 and in Ex.A2, same witnesses have attested in both documents and both documents have been scribed by one person which would further strengthen the case of plaintiffs.

15.As regards Ex.A1-sale deed, the stamp papers numbers are 4645 to 4651 and as regards Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement, the serial number mentioned on the stamp paper is 4652, which goes to show that both the documents were executed on one and the same day. It is also evident that stamp papers were purchased at one stretch and they were executed on 07.07.2004 as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 scribe. So the fact that the documents were prepared simultaneously, probablise the plaintiffs case. As

9 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

per Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, the plaintiffs shall plead and prove that

they have been ready and willing to perform their part of contract throughout. The relevant portion in Ex.A2 has to be gone into and the same is extracted

hereunder:-

“///,d;iwa jpdk ; 1 k ; ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;F 2 Kjy ; 5 k ; ,yf;fkpl;lth;fs ; fPH fz;l bt&l;a{ypy ; fz;l g[$;ir epy';fis fpiuak ; bra;J bfhLf;fpwhh;fs;/ fpiua bjhif U:/2.50.000- (vGj;jhy; ,uz;L ,yl;rj;J Ik;gjhapu k ; U:gha) MFk;/ nkw;go tha;jhtpw;Fs ; 2 Kjy; 5 k; ,yf;fkpl;lth;fs; nkw;go fpuaj; bjhifahd U:/2.50.000- 1 k; ,yf;fkpl;ltUf;F thg!; bfhLj;J tpl;L. rhpahd fpuag; gj;jpuj;ij jpUg;gp vKjp gjpt[ bra;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ nkw;go tha;jhtpw;F 2 Kjy

16.In a suit for specific performance, the basic principle of law is that the plaintiff, who is the vendee, must aver and prove that he has been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the fact. It is also interesting to note that it is really the evidence that has to be appreciated and it may be oral, documentary or circumstantial in nature.

It is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in

10 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., reported in (2002) 8 SCC

146 , a three judge bench of the Apex Court held as under:

''It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen.”

In K.Prakash v. B.R.Sampath Kumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC

11 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

597 , the Apex Court observed as under:

''16.The principles which can be enunciated is that where the plaintiff brings a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, the law insists a condition precedent to the grant of decree for specific performance that the plaintiff must show his continued readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in accordance with its terms from the date of contract to the date of hearing...

It is true, as contemplated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, that a party is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Nevertheless once an agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such a decree is established then the Court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance”.

19.The above said details would explicate that within five years from the date of Ex.A2 the 1^st defendant has to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is an admitted fact that on 12.05.2005, the plaintiffs caused to issue a legal notice to the 1^st defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs (Ex.A3). It is pertinent to note that Ex.A3 notice was also sent to Chandra Reddy. The said office copy of legal notice is Ex.A3 and the acknowledgement cards are Ex.A4.

20.Issuance of legal notice Ex.A3 by the plaintiffs’ counsel and the

12 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

receipt of the same by the 1^st defendant. Yet another point to be noted is that the plaintiffs took out an application in I.A.No.811 of 2016 directing the defendants to produce the original sale deed of Ex.A1 in order to send it for expert opinion and compare the signature of 1^st defendant, it was found that the Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4. As the said document was not produced by the 1^st defendant, the application was dismissed on merits. Had Ex.A2 been sent for comparison of 1^st defendant signature with that of Ex.A1 original sale deed, it would have ended in favour of the plaintiffs.

21.Therefore, non production of original of Ex.A1 sale deed leads to adverse inference against the 1^st defendant. The cumulative effect of above said discussion is that the plaintiffs have established that Ex.A2 reconveyance agreement was executed by the 1^st defendant which is scribed by P.W.2 (Nanjunda Reddy) on 07.07.2004 and attested by the same witnesses in both documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The 1^st defendant admits the execution of Ex.A1 and denies the execution of Ex.A2. Such denial is made in order to escape from the liability shouldered on him in Ex.A2.

22.The plaintiffs, after issuance of legal notice to the 1^st defendant, as he had not come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, deposited the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.64 of

13 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

2007 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Hosur. According to Ex.A2, the parties to the contract to be performed their part of contract within five years from the date of agreement which is on or before 07.07.2009 and the plaintiffs have presented the original suit was laid on 08.06.2007, indicates the fact that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract.

23.On careful perusal of the entire evidence of D.W.1/defendant no.1, it is pellucid that the 2^nd defendant/K.Sreenivasa Reddy is 1^st defendant’s maternal aunt's son. Father of K.Sreenivasa Reddy, Krishnappa has attested both in Ex.A1-sale deed as well as Ex.A2-re-conveyance agreement. The cross examination of P.W.1 explicates that the 1^st plaintiff and the 1^st defendant are step brothers. 1^st plaintiff is the son of Lakshmana Reddy born through his 1^st wife. Nanjamma @ Bodiamma and the 1^st defendant is the son of Lakshmana Reddy born through his second wife Ramakka. 3^rd defedant is the 4^th defendant's elder sister's son which fact is denied by D.W.1. 4^th defendant is the 1^st defendant's younger brother's wife. The 1^st defendant has sold the property to the 2^nd defendant under Ex.A8 on 11.06.2007 and the 2^nd defendant has sold in favour of 3^rd defendant under Ex.A5 on 06.12.2010. Sale deed in the name of 4^th defendant was executed by the 3^rd defendant on 20.05.2013 under Ex.A6. If really the 4th defendant is a bonafide purchaser she should have contested the suit and 1^st appeal. Yet another strong reason against the 1^st defendant is that if really he divested himself the right in the suit

14 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

properties to the 2^nd defendant, he would not have contested the suit or the 1^st appeal. The very fact that the 1^st appeal was preferred by the 1^st defendant alone strongly indicates the fact that he has created sham and nominal sale deed in favour of 2^nd defendant and the further sale deeds are also sham and nominal. The fact that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the close relatives of the 1^st defendant which would again go to show that they had knowledge about Ex.A2 re-conveyance agreement. The 2^nd defendant is the son of Krishnappa, who is one of the attestor in Ex.A1 sale deed and Ex.A2-re-conveyance agreement. Yet another crucial factor is that Ex.A3 legal notice was sent to the 1^st defendant and Chandra Reddy, husband of 4^th defendant herein on 12.05.2005. Chandra Reddy is the brother of the 1^st defendant. In the given circumstances, defendant nos.2 to 4 stand that they are bonafide purchasers, cannot be accepted as a true statement. In our society invariably, with the knowledge of the husband only, the wife would purchase properties and the exception is otherwise which is not pleaded by the 4^th defendant and the said details would also operate against the 4^th defendant. The above said sale deeds have been executed during the pendency of the proceedings are hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act 1882.

24.The five years period stipulated in Ex.A2 gets completed on 06.07.2009. The suit was laid on 08.06.2007 after the issuance of Ex.A3 notice dated 12.05.2005. These circumstances when the 1^st defendant has

15 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

agreed to execute the re-conveyance sale deed within five years from the date of Ex.A2, the filing of suit on 08.06.2007 cannot be taken that the plaintiffs have belatedly approached the Court and the contention of the 1^st defendant in this regard is not acceptable and therefore the substantial question of law is answered against the 1^st defendant.

25.The 1^st Appellate Court has held that the 4^th defendant who has purchased from the 3^rd defendant to execute re-conveyance sale deed along with 1^st defendant and the 4^th defendant is granted interest on Rs.2,50,000/from 07.07.2009 to 01.03.2016 due to the rise in land value. This portion of judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court needs modification. The sale deeds executed by 2^nd defendant in favour of 3^rd defendant (Ex.A1 dated 07.07.2004) and the sale deed executed by the 3^rd defendant in favour of 4^th defendant are sham and nominal, then the sale consideration and the interest has to be paid to the 1^st defendant. However, the direction that 1^st defendant and 4^th defendant together have to execute the re-conveyance sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is upheld, in order to avoid future complications. Except the above said modification, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the 1^st Appellate Court does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity.

26.Above being the position, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sequel to this,

16 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

(i) The plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance of reconveyance agreement (Ex.A2).

(ii) The fact that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been deposited by the plaintiffs on 01.03.2016, the plaintiffs have to pay 9% interest for the said amount for the period from 07.07.2009 to 28.02.2016 to the credit of O.S.No.64 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur. The 1^st defendant is entitled to withdraw the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/and the interest as ordered above only the amount accrued interest there on. The plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the suit properties (2 items) 0.76 cents after the execution of sale deed by the 1^st and 4^th defendants and on failure to be executed through Court. The plaintiffs are entitled for mutation of revenue records after the execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also entitled for relief of declaration regarding the sale deeds Document Nos.5726/2010 and 3188/2013 of SRO, Thenkanikottai as null and void. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.08.2025

gbi

17 / 18

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

S.A.No.22 of 2024

R.KALAIMATHI, J.,

gbi

To

1.The Additional District Court, Hosur.

2.The Additional Subordinate Court, Hosur.

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

S.A.No.22 of 2024

22.08.2025

18 / 18

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