Dismissed¶100

G.Vijaya W/O.Gopal v. a.Maharani

Madras HC5 Jun 2026AS/515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court appeal suit dismissed — specific performance of registered sale agreement Ex.A2 dated 21.06.2012 for Rs.20 lakhs upheld; appellant's contention that the agreement was a name-sake security for loans per alleged local custom unsupported by evidence; Section 92 Indian Evidence Act bar on disputing registered document; Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act 1963 readiness and willingness; ex parte decree set aside on application; balance consideration Rs.2 lakhs deposited before Trial Court; CMPs closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmity in the findings and reasoning of the trial Court that Ex.A2 is an agreement of sale and not a mere security or name-sake document for a loan transaction. ¶93

G.Vijaya W/O.Gopal Vs a.Maharani — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶100

Issue for consideration

Whether the sale agreement dated 21.06.2012 is true, valid and enforceable. +6 more

¶36

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no infirmity in the findings and reasoning of the trial Court that Ex.A2 is an agreement of sale and not a mere security or name-sake document for a loan transaction.

¶93

Key takeaways

The appellant let in no evidence to substantiate the alleged local custom of executing sale agreements as loan security or the cancellation of the earlier agreements; DW2's cross-examination admitted conscious execution of Ex.A2 by the appellant; and the reply notice Ex.A5 did not dispute the execution of Ex.A2 or the relationship between the parties, the security plea being raised only in the written statement.ratio¶88
The respondent/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract under Ex.A2 — the appellant admitted an advance of consideration to the tune of Rs.18 lakhs with only Rs.2 lakhs remaining — while the appellant, whose reply notice blankly denied execution of Ex.A2, was attempting to evade execution of the sale deed.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Specific performance of sale agreement — Ex.A2 dated 21.06.2012 for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.18,00,000/- advanced, balance Rs.2,00,000/- deposited in the Trial Court) — Appellant/defendant contended Ex.A2 was a name-sake security for loans, citing earlier name-sake agreements dated 23.03.2009 (Rs.4,25,000/- from Geetha) and 03.03.2010 (Rs.8,00,000/- from Gunasekaran) and an alleged local custom, and claimed the property was worth over Rs.2 crores — No evidence offered for the custom or the valuation; attestor DW2 admitted conscious execution; reply notice Ex.A5 did not dispute execution of Ex.A2 — Trial Court's findings endorsed, including the s.92, Indian Evidence Act bar against disputing a registered agreement's contents and readiness/willingness under s.16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 — High Court (Kumaresh Babu J.) found no infirmity in the trial Court's findings and dismissed the Appeal Suit; CMPs closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

AS No. 515 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 23-03-2026 :::: Pronounced on : 05-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

AS No. 515 of 2016 and CMP Nos. 17009, 12188 & 18867 of 2016

G.Vijaya

..Appellant(s)

A.Maharani

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : This Appeal Suit filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 made in O.S. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

¶13

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.R.Gunashekar For Respondent(s): Ms.V.Srimathi

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

The present Appeal suit has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed in O.S.No. 2 of 2014 by the Additional District And Sessions Judge-III, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

¶16