T.Krishnan Vs D.Kumari — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

T.Krishnan Vs D.Kumari — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

S.A.No.887 of 2019 (plaintiff's appeal against refusal of specific performance) dismissed; S.A.No.629 of 2021 (defendant's appeal against the refund direction) allowed; the Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.25 of 2018 of the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri (which had reversed the Trial Court's dismissal in O.S.No.80 of 2010) set aside; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P.Nos.18691 of 2019 & 14312 of 2021) closed.

Issue for consideration

Substantial Question of Law No.1: Whether the rejection of the relief of specific performance prayed for by the plaintiff, on the ground of alteration of the contents of the agreement (addition of a third witness to Ex.A1 after the copy was filed with the plaint), is valid. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court rejected the Appellate Court's explanation that the third witness may have signed after a photocopy was taken: the execution of an agreement must be complete only after signing of all the witnesses; the copy of Ex.A1 filed with the suit bore only two witnesses, and the plaintiff had to explain how the third witness (P.W.3) subscribed his signature, when it was made, and why his signature was left out of the filed copy.

Ratio / Principle

Under Order VII Rule 13 the document on which the plaintiff sues must be produced with the plaint and forms part of it; Ex.A1 as produced at the time of filing of suit shall not contain additional contents materially altering the nature of the document; the additional attestation/third witness on Ex.A1 was a clear alteration of the agreement sought to be enforced, for which the plaintiff stated no reason.

Key takeaways

The plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance because he has not approached the Court with clean hands; the Trial Court rightly rejected specific performance; Substantial Question of Law No.1 was answered accordingly.ratio¶16
As held by the Apex Court (K.R.Suresh vs. R.Poornima), refund of advance sale consideration is not permissible without a prayer for the same (in the original plaint or by amendment), the inclusion of the prayer clause being a sine qua non; admittedly no amendment petition was filed before the Appellate Court; hence the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court directing refund of the Advance Sale Consideration was set aside, and Substantial Question of Law No.2 was answered accordingly.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (K. Rajasekar, J.) - common judgment dated 12.09.2025 disposing of cross Second Appeals S.A.No.887 of 2019 (by plaintiff T.Krishnan) and S.A.No.629 of 2021 (by defendant D.Kumari) against the first appellate decree dated 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.25 of 2018 (IV Additional District Court, Ponneri), which had refused specific performance on the ground of undue hardship to the defendant but directed refund of the advance sale consideration without any such prayer, reversing the Trial Court's dismissal of specific performance (O.S.No.80 of 2010, Subordinate Court, Ponneri, decree dated 24.01.2018). HOLDING 1 (S.Q. No.1): the copy of Ex.A1 (agreement of sale dated 01.03.2006) filed with the plaint under Order VII Rule 13 bore only two witnesses, whereas the original produced at marking carried a third witness (P.W.3); since execution is complete only on signing by all witnesses and the plaintiff gave no explanation, Ex.A1 stood altered; the plaintiff, not having approached the Court with clean hands, was denied the discretionary relief, and the Trial Court's rejection was upheld. HOLDING 2 (S.Q. No.2): following the Apex Court's ratio in K.R.Suresh vs. R.Poornima (2025 INSC 617) - which reproduces Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh ((2023) 3 SCC 714) and cites Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi ((2019) 3 SCC 704) - refund of advance/earnest money cannot be decreed suo moto, the prayer clause being a sine qua non, and admittedly no amendment petition had been filed before the Appellate Court; the refund direction was therefore impermissible and was set aside. RESULT: S.A.No.887 of 2019 dismissed; S.A.No.629 of 2021 allowed; the A.S.No.25 of 2018 decree dated 22.02.2019 set aside; no costs; connected C.M.Ps. closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.25 of 2018 (IV Additional District Court, Ponneri) - the first appellate decree which refused specific performance (on the ground of undue hardship to the defendant) but directed refund of the advance sale consideration although no such relief was prayed for; challenged by both cross Second Appeals (S.A.No.887 of 2019 by the plaintiff against refusal of specific performance; S.A.No.629 of 2021 by the defendant against the refund direction).¶1
IV Additional District Court, Ponneri · 22.02.2019
Prior proceeding
Agreement of sale dated 01.03.2006 between plaintiff T.Krishnan and defendant D.Kumari for the suit property at a total sale consideration of Rs.6,72,000/-; advance of Rs.50,000/- paid on 01.03.2006 and further advances of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 15.03.2006, 30.03.2006 and 03.02.2007 with separate endorsements; plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness with balance of Rs.5,17,000/-.¶3
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.80 of 2010 (Subordinate Court/Subordinate Judge, Ponneri) for specific performance and vacant possession; Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 24.01.2018 dismissed the relief of specific performance, holding that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands owing to tampering/alteration of Ex.A1 (name of a third witness added to the original produced at marking, whereas the copy filed with the plaint showed two witnesses).¶6
Prior proceeding
First appeal A.S.No.25 of 2018 (IV Additional District Court, Ponneri): the Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence, accepted execution of the agreement, admissions and endorsements, upheld rejection of specific performance on the ground of undue hardship to the defendant, but granted a refund of the advance sale consideration (Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2019).¶7
Prior proceeding
Admission stage of the present Second Appeals: notice was ordered to the respondents and the learned counsel entered appearance.¶9

Cite this judgement

T.Krishnan v. D.Kumari, SA/887/2019 (MAD), decided on 12 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited4

Sundara Kanthi vs. B.N.GovindarajDoubted¶10
K.R.Suresh vs. R.Poornima and OthersFollowed¶17
Desh Raj v. Rohtash SinghReferred¶17

View all cases cited

Statutes3

Civil Procedure Code100 · Order VII Rule 13
Section 22 of the 1963 Act22

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.25 of 2018 (IV Additional District Court, Ponneri) - the first appellate decree which refused specific performance (on the ground of undue hardship to the defendant) but directed refund of the advance sale consideration although no such relief was prayed for; challenged by both cross Second Appeals (S.A.No.887 of 2019 by the plaintiff against refusal of specific performance; S.A.No.629 of 2021 by the defendant against the refund direction).IV Additional District Court, Ponneri · 22.02.2019
Agreement of sale dated 01.03.2006 between plaintiff T.Krishnan and defendant D.Kumari for the suit property at a total sale consideration of Rs.6,72,000/-; advance of Rs.50,000/- paid on 01.03.2006 and further advances of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 15.03.2006, 30.03.2006 and 03.02.2007 with separate endorsements; plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness with balance of Rs.5,17,000/-.
Suit O.S.No.80 of 2010 (Subordinate Court/Subordinate Judge, Ponneri) for specific performance and vacant possession; Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 24.01.2018 dismissed the relief of specific performance, holding that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands owing to tampering/alteration of Ex.A1 (name of a third witness added to the original produced at marking, whereas the copy filed with the plaint showed two witnesses).

View full history

Bench / Coram

Justice K. Rajasekar

Parties & counsel