Second appeal against reversal of a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The first appellate court found unexplained delay of about two years before demand and a disproportionate advance, and granted only refund with interest. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
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.(MD) No.130 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2016 of 2021
Sekaran (M/65), S/o.Natarajapillai. No.2928, Keela 4th street, Pudukottai Town, Pudukottai District.
... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff Vs. Arumugam (M/50), S/o.Chinnaiah, Karunkalikollai, Kuppakudi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District. ...Respondent/Appellant / Defendant
PRAYER in S.A.: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No.6 of 2015 dated 13.06.2018 on the file of Principal District Court, Pudukottai, by reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.235 of 2009 dated 01.02.2014 on the file of the Sub court, Pudukottai and pass such or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the above case and thus render justice.
1/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
PRAYER in C.M.P :
To grant an order of interim stay of the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S. No.6 of 2015 dated 13.06.2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, by reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.235 of 2009 dated 01.02.2014 on the file of the Sub court, Pudukottai, pending disposal of the Second Appeal and thus render justice.
For Appellant : Mr. J.Jeyakumaran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. M.Suresh, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Heard.
dated 13.06.2018 in A.S. No. 6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, whereby the decree for specific performance granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, in O.S. No. 235 of 2009 dated 01.02.2014 was reversed.
2/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
5.The defendant, while admitting the execution of Ex.A-1, contended that the document was never intended to operate as a sale agreement. According to him, the plaintiff was a moneylender, and Ex.A-1 had been obtained merely as security for a loan availed by the 3/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
defendant’s brother-in-law. The defendant further expressed his readiness to repay the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest.
4/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
Rs.10,000/- lent credence to the defence plea that Ex.A-1 was executed
merely as a security for a loan.
first appellate court exercised its discretion by granting only the alternative relief of refund with interest. No error of law has been demonstrated so as to give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC.
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
LS
5/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
Copy to:
6/7
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
S.A.(MD) No.130 of 2021
29.08.2025
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate court's finding that the plaintiff lacked continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c), and its refusal of specific performance, disclosed a substantial question of l
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sekaran
Arumugam
A.D.Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
