Dismissed¶27

G.Manoharan v. Vidhya

Madras HC24 Jan 2025SA/35/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, S.A.No.35 of 2025 (with CMP.No.733 of 2025), decided 24.01.2025 by T.V.ThamilSelvi, J.; parties: G.Manoharan (plaintiff/appellant) v. Vidhya and Ms.Kalaivani (defendants/respondents); counsel: R.Venkata Varathan for appellant. Keywords: specific performance; Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act - readiness and willingness; Section 100 Civil Procedure Code - second appeal; refund of advance amount (alternative relief); reversal by first appellate court confirmed; Additional District Judge Dharmapuri; Subordinate Judge Palacode; burden of proof despite defendants' non-appearance; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the first appellate court's alternative relief of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff is confirmed (no monetary figure stated in the judgment). ¶27

G.Manoharan Vs Vidhya — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the first appellate court's alternative relief of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff is confirmed (no monetary figure stated in the judgment).

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement, as required for a decree of specific performance. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement; having approached the court only after completion of the third year, he had not demonstrated his readiness and willingness, and the trial judge's observation to that effect rightly required no interference.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Although the defendants did not appear before the trial court, the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove his case.

¶22

Key takeaways

The learned first appellate judge rightly granted the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount; since specific performance is an equitable remedy under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff failed to comply with its requirements, the first appellate judge correctly observed that he was not entitled to such relief.ratio¶26
There is no merit in the Second Appeal; it is dismissed, and the findings of the first appellate judge, including the order for refund of the advance amount, are confirmed; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed with no order as to costs.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (S.A.No.35 of 2025) under Section 100 CPC by the plaintiff against the first appellate reversal (A.S.No.4 of 2022, Addl. District Judge, Dharmapuri) of the trial decree in O.S.No.23 of 2019 (Subordinate Judge, Palacode). Held: the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed per the agreement, approaching the court only after completion of the third year; the trial judge's finding required no interference. Though the defendants did not appear before the trial court, the burden of proving the case lay on the plaintiff. As specific performance is an equitable remedy under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff failed to comply with its requirements, the first appellate judge correctly denied specific performance and rightly granted the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount. Second Appeal dismissed; first appellate findings, including the refund order, confirmed; connected CMP.No.733 of 2025 closed; no costs.

¶1

S.A. No.35 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

S.A.No.35 of 2025 and CMP.No.733 of 2025

¶7

G.Manoharan ...Appellant

¶8

Vs 1.Vidhya 2.Ms.Kalaivani ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.4 of 2022 dated 14.02.2023 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, by reversing the decree and judgment dated 01.11.2021 in O.S.No.23 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palacode.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Varathan

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 4 of 2022, dated 14.02.2023, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, reversing the decree and judgment dated

¶13

1\4

¶14

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

¶15

S.A. No.35 of 2025

¶16

01.11.2021 in O.S.No.23 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palacode.

¶17

For a sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

¶18

Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

¶19

Before the trial court, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready

¶20

and willing to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement. After the completion of the third year, at the end of the day, he approached the court, which itself shows that he had not demonstrated his readiness and willingness. This was rightly observed by the learned trial judge, and therefore, it requires no interference.

¶21

The learned first appellate judge rightly granted the alternative

¶22

relief of refund of the advance amount. Though the defendants did not appear before the trial court, the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove his case.

¶23

2\4

¶24

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

¶25

S.A. No.35 of 2025

¶26

Since specific performance is an equitable remedy under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and the plaintiff failed to comply with its requirements, the learned first appellate judge correctly observed that he was not entitled to such relief.

¶27

Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal, and it is dismissed. The findings of the first appellate judge, including the order for the refund of the advance amount, are confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

24.01.2025

¶29

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶30

rri

¶31

¶32