Dismissed¶¶57

Naseer Begam v. Abdul Gafoor

Madras HC3 Dec 2025SA/309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, S.A. No. 309 of 2014, decided 03.12.2025 by Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete — Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage; concurrent findings of District Munsif (O.S.No.383/2004, decree 21.10.2005) and Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal (A.S.No.41/2009, decree 25.06.2012) confirmed; specific performance of sale agreement dated 11.12.1998 (consideration Rs.1,00,000/-, advance Rs.12,000/) upheld; challenge to probability of execution held purely factual; no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appellants' contention regarding the probability of execution of the agreement is purely factual in nature. ¶¶49

Naseer Begam Vs Abdul Gafoor — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Probability/due execution of the sale agreement (Ex. A1): the appellants challenged the probability of execution of the agreement, arguing it was improbable for a father who executed a settlement deed in 1997 to later enter into an agreement of sale in 1998 with the same son granting six months' time for execution. +1 more

¶¶48

Court's answer

Under Section 100 of CPC, this Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law is demonstrated.

¶¶51

Ratio / Principle

The appellants' contention regarding the probability of execution of the agreement is purely factual in nature.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

Both courts below, upon appreciation of evidence, categorically held that the Ex. A1 agreement was duly executed by the first defendant and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.ratio¶¶49
Both Courts concurrently exercised judicial discretion in favour of granting specific performance, taking note of the surrounding circumstances and credibility of evidence.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete), 03.12.2025: dismissed S.A. No. 309 of 2014 at the admission stage itself, upholding the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court (O.S.No.383 of 2004, Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, decree dated 21.10.2005, suit for specific performance decreed) and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal (A.S.No.41 of 2009, judgment and decree dated 25.06.2012, dismissing the first appeal). Background: plaintiff (father) had settled the suit property on his son (first defendant, since deceased, succeeded by heirs as defendants 2 to 5); a sale agreement dated 11.12.1998 (Ex. A1) followed for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- with Rs.12,000/- advanced and six months fixed for completion, possession handed over; after a refused legal notice dated 07.05.1999 the plaintiff sued for specific performance. The appellants' sole challenge — the improbability of a father settling property in 1997 agreeing to buy it back from the son in 1998 — was held purely factual: both courts below had categorically found the Ex. A1 agreement duly executed and the plaintiff ready and willing, exercising concurrent judicial discretion in favour of specific performance. Invoking Section 100 CPC, the High Court found no perversity, illegality or misapplication of law and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition, if any, closed.

¶1

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2025

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

S.A. No. 309 of 2014

¶7

Naseer Begam W/o Abdul Karim

¶8

Samma D/o Abdul Karim

¶9

Sabji D/o Abdul Karim

¶10

All are residents of Majeed Street, Erumaipatti Namakkal Taluk & District.

¶11

... Defendants 2 to 4/Appellants 2 to 4/ Appellants 1 to 3

¶12

Vs.

¶13

Abdul Gafoor S/o Samsudeein, Erumapatti Namakkal taluk & district Rep., by his power agent M.A. Abdul Wahab S/o Abdul Qadar 67, Meenambal Street, Erumaipatti, Namakkal District. ... Plaintiff/2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶17

Minor Najina D/o Abdul Karim aged 14 years resident of Erumaipatti Namakkal taluk & district Rep., by court guardian N.S Sukumar Advocate / Bar Association - Civil Namakkal ... 5^th Defendant/5^th Appellant /2^nd Respondent

¶18

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge Namakkal dated 25/06/2012 passed in A.S.No.41/2009 confirming the judgment and decree of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal dated 21/10/2005 passed in O.S.No.383/2004.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. I. Abrar Mohamed Abdullah For Respondents : Mr. S.Senthil for R1 R2 – Notice served no appearance

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard.

¶22

2.This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and

¶23

decree dated 25.06.2012 passed in A.S.No.41 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment and decree dated

¶24

2/8

¶25

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

¶26

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶27

21.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.383 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.

¶28

3.The appellants are the defendants 2 to 4 and the respondents are the plaintiff and the 5^th defendant in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

¶29

4.The brief background of the case necessary to dispose of this second appeal are as follows: The plaintiff is the father of the deceased first defendant. The plaintiff had earlier executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, namely the first defendant, in respect of the suit property.Subsequently, when the first defendant intended to sell the suit property, the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale agreement dated 11.12.1998, whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. An advance amount of Rs.12,000/- was paid and six months’ time was fixed for completion of the sale. Possession of the property was also handed over to the plaintiff.

¶30

3/8

¶31

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

¶32

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶33

5.When the plaintiff approached the first defendant to pay the balance sale consideration and to complete the transaction, the first defendant evaded execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 07.05.1999, which was refused by the first defendant. Left with no other alternative, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for specific performance of contract.

¶34

6.During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5.

¶35

7.The second defendant in the written statement contended that the first defendant had been working abroad and returned to India in the year 1995 in a terminally ill condition due to diabetes, resulting in amputation of his leg. It was claimed that at the time of hospitalisation at Coimbatore, the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and, by force, obtained the thumb impressions of the first defendant on blank papers and stamp papers and later fabricated the agreement of sale. It was further contended that the plaintiff’s son through his second wife, Abdul Gafoor, had filed O.S.No.400 of 1999 against the first defendant challenging the settlement deed, and that the said suit was in fact

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶39

pursued by the plaintiff himself. The second defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff was never put in possession and had been allowed only to store wooden articles in the suit premises. Hence, dismissal of the suit was sought.

¶40

8.On behalf of defendants 4 and 5, who were minors, a court guardian was appointed and a written statement was filed denying the plaint averments.

¶41

9.The plaintiff filed a reply statement denying the allegations of fraud and fabrication of documents as alleged by the defendants.

¶42

10.On the plaintiff’s side, two witnesses were examined and documents were marked. No witness was examined on the defendants’ side.

¶43

11.The Trial Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance. The First Appellate Court, by a reasoned judgment, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶47

12.In the present Second Appeal, the appellants essentially challenge the

¶48

probability of execution of the agreement , arguing that it is improbable for a father who executed a settlement deed in 1997 to later enter into an agreement of sale in 1998 with the same son granting six months’ time for execution.

¶49

13.This contention is purely factual in nature. Both the Courts below, upon appreciation of evidence, have categorically held that Ex. A1 agreement was duly executed by the first defendant and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶50

14.Both Courts have concurrently exercised judicial discretion in favour of granting specific performance, taking note of the surrounding circumstances and credibility of evidence.

¶51

15.It is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, this Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law is demonstrated. The findings rendered by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled legal principles. No

¶52

6/8

¶53

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

¶54

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶55

perversity, error of law, or failure of justice is shown.Thus, no substantial question

¶56

of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.

¶57

16.In view of the above discussion, this Second Appeal stands dismissed at

¶58

the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stands closed.

¶59

03.12.2025

¶60

ay Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

¶61

Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order

¶62

¶63

1.The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

¶64

2.The District Munsif, Namakkal.

¶65

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

¶66

7/8

¶67

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

¶68

S.A.No.309 of 2014

¶69

DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J

S.A. No.309 of 2014

Dated: 03.12.2025

8/8

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 25/06/2012 of the learned subordinate judge, Namakkal, in A.S.No.41/2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21/10/2005 of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, in O.S.No.383/2004.¶¶18
Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal · 25.06.2012
Prior proceeding
Trial: suit O.S.No.383 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
The Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance after considering oral and documentary evidence.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
First appellate stage: A.S.No.41 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Namakkal; the First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court's findings and dismissed the appeal.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
Background: the plaintiff (father) had earlier executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, the first defendant, in respect of the suit property.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Background: sale agreement dated 11.12.1998 between plaintiff and first defendant; total consideration Rs.1,00,000/-, advance Rs.12,000/- paid, six months fixed for completion, possession handed over to the plaintiff.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
First defendant evaded execution; plaintiff issued legal notice dated 07.05.1999, which was refused.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff then instituted the present suit for specific performance of contract.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died; his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Defence contention in written statement: plaintiff allegedly obtained the first defendant's thumb impressions by force on blank papers and stamp papers and fabricated the agreement of sale.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Written statement also referred to related suit O.S.No.400 of 1999 challenging the settlement deed.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
Defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was never put in possession and had been allowed only to store wooden articles in the suit premises.¶¶39
Prior proceeding
For minor defendants 4 and 5 a court guardian was appointed and a written statement filed denying the plaint averments.¶¶40
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff filed a reply statement denying the allegations of fraud and fabrication of documents.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Evidence record at trial: two witnesses examined and documents marked on the plaintiff's side; no witness examined on the defendants' side.¶¶42

Naseer Begam v. Abdul Gafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseer Begam v. Abdul Gafoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Shalini Vs K.P.Harish

C.Suganya Vs C.Karnan

Pakkirisamy Vs Balamurugan

D.Vignesh Vs Ramya

Mahalakshmi Vs Sankar

M.Esakkiammal Vs S.Mathan