K. Dorairaj vs Kuppammal (Deceased) on 26 August, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

K. Dorairaj vs Kuppammal (Deceased) on 26 August, 2025

The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC as against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet in OS. No. 241/2006, dismissing the suit for specific performance, filed by the Plaintiff.

2. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant in brief contended that, after fixing the sale consideration for sale of the suit schedule Page 2/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 property owned by the 1st defendant in the suit i.e.. Kuppammal (since deceased), at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per cent and after receiving an advance of Rs. 13,50,000/- (on various dates), the 1st defendant. Kuppammal, did not come forward for execution of the Sale Deed, even though the Appellant/ Plaintiff was all along ready and willing. The same therefore, necessitated filing of the suit for specific performance.

3. It is the contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed and evaded execution of the same, as the 1st defendant who undertook to produce the patta in her name, evidencing the physical availability of the land to the extent of 69 cents, did not produce the patta. The 1st defendant on various occasions, when the plaintiff approached, stated that she was busy with the marriage of her granddaughter (daughter of the 4th Defendant in suit, Mr. Radhakrishnan, the DW1) and after completion of the same, she will execute the Sale Deed.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant pointing out Exhibit Al, which is a sale deed dated 05.08.1948 registered on the files of the SRO Pallavaram in Document No. 1426/1948, contended that the said document, Page 3/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 which is the only parent title document available before the purchase of the property by the 1st defendant, does not have the boundaries in measurement. Moreover, the said document has got the extent mentioned in Kani with reference of Paimash numbers. Similar is also Exhibit A2, which is the Sale deed by which the 1st Defendant purchased the property in the year 1950. Since thereafter, many surveys were conducted by the revenue department and the paimash numbers were converted into survey numbers and subsequently to re-survey numbers and then totown survey numbers.

5. During the surveys conducted by the revenue department and the Paimash numbers have been converted into survey numbers and Kani has been converted to acres, cents, sq. mtrs and sq. feet. The said surveys resulted not only in varying the extent of the land holding, but also the boundaries resulting in specific length and breadth. Between 1979 and 1987, under the Updating of the Registry (UDR) scheme, land ownership records and the actual extent of land which was available were surveyed, corrected and updated. Though, there was a reference of patta in relation to the paimash number found in exhibit A2, even the said patta was not shown or produced by the 1st defendant or the other defendants either to the plaintiff or before the Page 4/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 Trial Court. The 1st defendant undertook to obtain and produce the patta with reference to the actual extent of land available evidencing the physical availability of the land, after the marriage of her granddaughter, which was not done.

6. The 2nd defendant (deceased) who is the husband of the 1st Defendant and the 4th defendant, who were present at the time of execution of the Exhibit A6 and receiving of the advance amounts claimed that the 1st defendant owned 69 cents. But however, the local enquiry and the claim of the adjacent land owners raised serious doubts over the actual extent of the land that was available and that was the reason the sale consideration was fixed specifying rate for per cent of land. The 1st, 2nd and the 4th Defendants after getting almost 50% of the sale consideration as advance, which they spent for the 4th defendant's daughters' marriages, wanting to defeat the rights of the plaintiff caused Exhibit A7. Though the same was replied promptly by the plaintiff vide exhibit A8, expressing his readiness and willingness to complete the sale, the 1st defendant neither responded to the said notice nor complied with the demands made by the plaintiff in Exhibit A8. Page 5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025

7. Per contra, the counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the agreement of sale was oral. After receiving an advance of Rs.1,00,0000/- on 15.05.2005 the 1st defendant. Kuppammal, gave 3 months' period for the Appellant to arrange the balance sale consideration. On 24.05.2005, after receiving a further sum of Rs.4,50,000/- an oral condition was imposed by the 1st defendant that the balance sale consideration should be paid within a period of 3 months. After completion of 3 months the Appellant expressed that he was not in position to pay the said sum due to financial crisis and on 12.08.2005, the Appellant paid an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- upon which the 1st Defendant extended the time for further 3 months orally and stated orally that on failure to do so the agreement of sale shall stand cancelled automatically. However, the Appellant failed to pay the balance consideration within the 3 months period and therefore the 1st defendant sent a notice dated 23.01.2006. Since, the said notice was evaded and also there was no response to the phone calls made by the 1st defendant, a legal notice was sent vide Exhibit A7 dated 18.03.2006, which was responded by the Appellant by an evasive reply dated 28.06.2006 marked as Exhibit A8.

8. It was further contended by the Learned Counsel for the 1st Page 6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 Respondent (the 4th defendant in the suit), the Appellant herein took steps to complete the sale transaction, only after the 1st defendant sent the legal notice dated 18.06.2006 (Exhibit A7) which suggests lack of proactive "readiness and willingness". There was no oral agreement as alleged by the Appellant, to obtain patta, nonetheless, such averment in Exhibit A6. The purported sale agreement Exhibit A6, mentioned the patta number. The Appellant failed to prove the financial capacity. Exhibit All dated 28.10.2015, fails to establish the readiness and willingness of the Appellant on 24.05.2005. Exhibit All does not establish the readiness and willingness from the date of Exhibit A6, i.e., 15.05.2005 till the date of decree. The marking of Exhibit All is an afterthought. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of JP Builders, [(2011) 1 SCC 429], the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/4th Defendant contended that the non-compliance of the specific mandate under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 will dis-entitle the Court from granting specific performance. He relied upon the decision in the case of I.S. Sikander [(2013) 15 SCC 27], to contend that that a declaration should have been sought for declaring the termination as wrongful. He further contended that Exhibit A6 is not an agreement of sale and does not comply with the essential elements of an agreement of sale. Page 7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025

9. The Learned counsel for the 1st respondent placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chand Rani [(1993 1 SCC 519], contended that merely because, time which is the essence of a contract, is not mentioned explicitly, it does not mean that a party can take indefinite amount of time to perform his obligation.

10. The Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5 made similar submissions and specifically denied the contentions of the Appellant/Plaintiff's allegation that the defendants have dragged on the proceedings for almost 20 years and the Appellant's interpretation of the section 55 (1)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the section 10 and 14 (1) (a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are not correct.

11. In response to the reply arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that in view of the admission made by the 1st respondent/4th defendant about the marriage of his two daughters in his cross examination.

                                  “@///15/05/2005y;       vd;Dila                  mk;kh     thjpa[ld;


                 Page 8/31


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
                                                                                         AS NO. 626 of 2025

                          xg;ge;jk;   nghl;lhh;    vd;whYk;             mg;nghJ          ehd;    cld;

                          ,Ue;njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/                  me;j xg;ge;jj;jpy; ehd;

rhl;rp ifbahg;gk; nghl;Ls;nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd; mnj njjpapy; U:gha; 1 yl;rk; ml;thd;!; th';fpndd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xg;ge;jk; U:gha; 28 yl;rj;J 98 Mapuj;jpw;F nghlg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 24/05/2005y; U:gha; 8 yl;rk; vd; mk;kh thjpaplkpUe;J th';fpa[s;shh;/ mnj nghy; 12/08/2005y; U:gha; 4 yl;rj;J 50 Mapuk; thjpaplkpUe;J vd;Dila mk;kh th';fpa[s;shh;/ vd; kfSf;F jpUkzkhfp 10 tUl';fs; MfpapUf;Fk; 2005y;

vd;Dila Kjy; kfSf;F jpUkzk; bra;Jitj;njd;

vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 6 khjk; fHpj;J ,uz;lhtJ kfSf;F jpUkzk; bra;Jitj;njd;/ ///@

12. The contention of the Appellant that giving the excuse of the marriage of the granddaughters, the 1st Defendant had postponed the execution of the sale deed and there was no delay on the part of the Appellant, stands vindicated. He further submitted that the said contention of the Page 9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 Appellant is also fortified by the Written Statement filed by the 6th Defendant, wherein it was accepted that the 1st defendant was in need of money for getting her girls married. The said admission which was contained in the Written Statement filed by the 6th defendant was also adopted by the defendants 7-9.

13. With reference to the patta the plaintiff has set out, specific contentions and averments in the reply notice itself, in exhibit A "...Though the title deeds reflect the ownership of your client in Survey Nos. 279/1A and 1B to the extent of 69 cents since the actual available land in physical possession as well as the revenue records it is not correlating with the extent found in the title deeds and it fell short by about 29 cents, Agreement was entered fixing the sale consideration per cent at Rs.42,000/-and the total sale consideration was calculated according to the actual extent of ownership of the lands available in S. Nos. 279/1A and 18. ...

...Even at the time of agreement, though your client undertook to have the revenue records updated 1. with regard to the total Page 10/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 extent of land which your client claim to be the owner and in spite of repeated requests by our client, expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract, your client, after receiving substantial advance amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only) was deliberately keeping quiet and did not take any steps to fulfill her part of the contract."

The said reply notice though was received by the 1st Defendant no rejoinder was issued denying the said allegation. The categorical admission made by the 1st respondent/4th defendant, in his cross examination is that:-

"///15/05/2005y; vd;Dila mk;kh thjpa[ld; xg;ge;jk;

                       nghl;lhh;      vd;whYk;        mg;nghJ            ehd;        cld;     ,Ue;njd;

                       vd;why;        rhpjhd;/         me;j         xg;ge;jj;jpy;           ehd;   rhl;rp

ifbahg;gk; nghl;Ls;nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd; mnj njjpapy; U:gha; 1 yl;rk; ml;thd;!; th';fpndd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xg;ge;jk; U:gha; 28 yl;rj;J 98 Mapuj;jpw;F nghlg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 24/05/2005y; U:gha; 8 yl;rk; vd; mk;kh Page 11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 thjpaplkpUe;J th';fpa[s;shh;/ mnj nghy; 12/08/2005y;


                       U:gha; 4 yl;rj;J 50 Mapuk; thjpaplkpUe;J vd;Dila

                       mk;kh th';fpa[s;shh;/          vd; kfSf;F jpUkzkhfp 10

                       tUl';fs;       MfpapUf;Fk;             2005y;          vd;Dila       Kjy;

                       kfSf;F jpUkzk; bra;Jitj;njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/                             6

                       khjk;      fHpj;J      ,uz;lhtJ                   kfSf;F         jpUkzk;

                       bra;Jitj;njd;/ ///@

14. The above evidence clearly establishes the fact that the 1st defendant though claimed ownership of 69 cents as per the document, there is no physical land available to that extent and she never had patta in her name at any point of time. Further, the Senior Counsel pointing out to the Exhibit A-8 the reply notice, contended that the physical extent does not correlate with the sale deed, Exhibit A-2, as it fell short by 29 cents. This was reason even in the reply notice in Exhibit A8, the plaintiff wanted the 1st defendant to prepare the draft sale deed "with regard to the actual ownership of land". which was definitely less than what is stated in exhibit A2. This was not specifically denied either by way of rejoinder or in the written statement by the defendants. Therefore the same amounts to admission. The patta with reference to the Page 12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 subject property stood mutated only on 31.01.2020 which clearly establishes that the available land is only 15 ares and 54 sq.m. which is equivalent to 38.4 cents. At the agreed rate of 42,000/- per cent, the same works out only to Rs. 16,12,800/-. Out of the said sum of Rs. 16,12,800/-, the 1st Defendant has already received a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- as early as 2005. Therefore, the conduct of the defendants do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

15. Exhibit A-ll is the bank statement for the period 22.03.2006 to 30.12.2007. The legal notice in Exhibit A7 though is dated 18.03.2006 was despatched only on 24.03.2006 and was received by the Plaintiff only on 25.03.2006. Therefore the bank statement filed in Exhibit A-11 before the Trial Court clearly establishes the fact of sufficiency of the amount available with the plaintiff, even before the receipt of the said notice (Exhibit A-7) and the capability of the plaintiff and consequently the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff.

16. The Learned Senior Counsel further relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sukhbir Singh [(1997) 2 SCC 200) stated that it is not necessary that the Plaintiff in the specific performance suit to carry the Page 13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 money with the Plaintiff from the date of the suit till the date of decree and it is sufficient if the plaintiff establishes his capacity to pay the sale consideration.

17. It was further contended by the Senior Counsel that the Trial Court erred in placing reliance on Exhibit A-7 for rejecting the specific performance claim of the plaintiff, as the same was not instructed to be given by the 1st defendant, by pointing out the admission made in this regard by the 1st respondent/4th defendant.

                                  "@///tHf;fwp”h;       mwptpg;g[           mDg;g          vd;Dila

                           mk;khit tHf;fwp”hplk; ehd; miHj;J brd;nwdh

                           vd;why;     ,y;iy/               xg;ge;jj;ij                 uj;J     bra;a

,uhn$e;jpud; tHf;fwp”hplk; mwptpg;g[ mDg;g ehd;

                           jhd; brhd;ndd;/        me;j mwptpg;gpy; vd;Dila mg;gh.

                           mk;kh ifbaGj;J nghl;lhh;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/

                           thjpf;F      mDg;gpa          mwptpg;gpw;F              gjpy;       mwptpg;g[

                           mDg;gpdhuh vd;why; bjhpatpy;iy/ ///@



                 Page 14/31


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
                                                                                       AS NO. 626 of 2025

18. More so, when the contents of the said notice regarding the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was completely incorrect and erroneous. Therefore, it is evident the 4th defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant,did not want the agreement of sale between plaintiff and the 1st defendant to get fructified for his own illegal benefits and had caused the Exhibit A-7, after receiving almost half of the agreed sale consideration which was also approximately near to the value of the land actually available.

19. This Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court, completely misdirected itself without framing any proper issue to address the controversy involved. The real controversy being the actual available extent of land, which contention the Plaintiff had taken out at the earliest point of time, in the pre- suit reply notice itself, if the Trial Court had addressed the said issue and had it decided, the same would have established the genuineness of the contentions and claims of both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

20. The plaintiff as a purchaser is entitled to demand and the 1st defendant, as the Vendor, is bound to produce all necessary documents under Page 15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 section 55(1)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even if it is not specifically stated in the agreement of sale, which the defendants deliberately did not do.

21. It was admitted by the 1st respondent / 4th defendant in his cross examination that the decision not to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was taken by defendants only in the year 2007. Whereas, Exhibit A-7 was issued on 28.03.2006 and the suit itself was filed in May, 2006. Therefore even according to the defendants, when they were willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was willing to purchase the same till the year 2007, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit filed in the year 2006, without addressing the actual controversy involved. Therefore, this Court draws, the following points for determination in this Appeal:-

a. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

b. Whether the 1st defendant after receiving an advance of 13,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 28,98,000/- for 69 cents, did not have Page 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 in physical possession the land to the said extent and the actual extent of land available was less?

c. Whether the 1st defendant was having patta mutated in her name after the re-survey and settlement effected in the revenue records converting paimash numbers into survey numbers?

d. Whether the reliance placed on exhibit A7 andignoring the reply made by the plaintiff in exhibit A8, by the trial court for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance of exhibit A6 was justified? CONCLUSION AND REASONING

22. (i.) As to whether the 1st defendant after receiving an advance of Rs. 13,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 28,98,000/- for 69 cents did not have physical possession, the land to the said extent and the actual extent of land available was less. Therefore, this Court holds that the 1st Defendant was not possessing/having physical extent of 69 cents. For the said reason, after conclusion of arguments in this Appeal, this Court proposed and Page 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 suggested for appointment of Advocate Commissioner along with a surveyor to survey and measure the actual extent of the available land. For which though it was immediately accepted by the Appellant, the Respondents refused to accept the same and stated that the question of measuring the extent of land does not arise in a suit for specific performance and refused for appointment of advocate commissioner for measurement of land with help of Government Surveyor.

(ii) The fact that the actual physical extent of the available land was lesser than 69 cents is even evident from Exhibit A-7. The legal notice said to have been issued on behalf of the 1st defendant, which though claims that Kuppammal, the 1st Defendant, was the owner of 69 cents, it states that she has agreed to sell only 62 cents.

(iii) Apart from the same, as pointed by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Exhibit A2, the document by which the 1st defendant, Kuppammal purchased the property in the year 1950, does not have any measurements with regard to the boundaries and similar is also the position with regard to the only available document prior to the said purchase, which is Page 18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 of the year 1948 Exhibit Al. In both the exhibits Al and A2 the measurement is in Kani with reference to paimash numbers. It is a fact that the paimash numbers were converted into survey numbers and thereafter, to re-survey numbers and then to town survey numbers. The revenue records were updated under UDR Scheme between 1979 and 1987 with specific measurements of the boundaries of the actual physical extent of available land. The argument advanced by the Appellant that the revenue records were mutated in the name of the deceased 1st defendant only on 13.01.2020, which evidences only an available extent of 15 ares and 54 sq.m which is equivalent 38.40 cents was not even denied by the respondents.

23. There was no specific denial by the defendants either by way of rejoinder or in the written statement to the pre-suit reply notice of the plaintiff marked as exhibit A8, contending that the actual physical extent of land fell short by 29 cents. Absence of any specific denial, amounts to admission. The onus is on the defendants to disprove the contention of the plaintiff that the physical extent of the land fell short than, what was found in the 1950 document is incorrect by adducing necessary evidence or the patta which they claim to be in their possession and proving that the physical availability of the Page 19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 land is equivalent to the extent mentioned in the Exhibit A2.

24. Therefore, it is held that the physical extent of the actual available land is lesser than 69 cents and the plaintiff having paid already a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- is liable to pay only the balance amount to the extent of the actual available land at the rate of 42,000/- per cent of land as agreed in Exhibit A6.

ii. As to whether the 1st defendant was having patta mutated in her name after the re-survey and settlement effected in the revenue records converting paimash numbers into survey numbers at the time of execution of Exhibit A-6, this Court answers the same in negative.

25. Though the defendants during the arguments before this court claimed that the patta was mentioned in the 1950 document and therefore was available, it was admitted in the cross examination that they have not produced it to substantiate their claim/contention.

                                  “///vd;Dila       mk;kh           Fg;gk;khs;           bgahpy;   gl;lh

                        bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/          me;j gl;lh Vw;fdnt ePjpkd;wj;jpy;


                 Page 20/31


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )
                                                                                         AS NO. 626 of 2025

                        jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/                 mt;thwhd Mtzk; vJt[k;

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;why; ehd;

                        gl;lhit       vd;Dila           tHf;fwp”hplk;                  bfhLj;Js;nsd;/

                        mth; vd;d bra;jhh; vd;W bjhpahJ/                          tHf;F brhj;jpw;F

                        ,Jtiu gl;lh th';ftpy;iy/                        th';fp jUtjhf fhyk;

                        flj;jp te;njhk; vd;W brhd;dhy; fpilant fpilahJ/

                        vd;       mk;kh   bgahpy;       cs;s           mry;            fpiua   gj;jpuk;

ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vd;whYk; gl;lh jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; vd;Dila tHf;fwp”hplk; jhd; nfl;f ntz;Lk;/ ///@ Therefore this court has got no other option except to draw adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act [119(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] against the respondents/defendants.

26. The reliance placed on Exhibit A7 and ignoring the reply made by the plaintiff in Exhibit A-8 by the trial court for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance of Exhibit A-8 was unjustified, for the reason the 1st defendant in her capacity as the owner of the land by virtue of Page 21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 the Exhibit A-2 has entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff through Exhibit A-6. Exhibit A7, as was admitted by the 1st respondent/4th defendant in his cross examination was not issued on the instructions of the 1st defendant, Kuppammal but at the instruction of the 1st respondent/ 4th defendant. The deposition is as under:-

                           @///tHf;fwp”h;       mwptpg;g[          mDg;g             vd;Dila           mk;khit

                 tHf;fwp”hplk;           ehd;      miHj;J               brd;nwdh             vd;why;    ,y;iy/

xg;ge;jj;ij uj;J bra;a ,uhn$e;jpud; tHf;fwp”hplk; mwptpg;g[ mDg;g ehd; jhd; brhd;ndd;/ me;j mwptpg;gpy; vd;Dila mg;gh. mk;kh ifbaGj;J nghl;lhh;fsh vd;why; ,y;iy/ thjpf;F mDg;gpa mwptpg;gpw;F gjpy; mwptpg;g[ mDg;gpdhuh vd;why; bjhpatpy;iy/ ///@

27. Moreover though there was a written agreement, i.e., Exhibit A-6 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, Exhibit A7 which was issued at the instruction of the 4th Defendant states there was only an oral agreement and the extent agreed to be sold was 62 cents instead of 69 cents. The 4th Defendant himself accepts during his cross examination that there was a written agreement and that he was witness to the same. The Trial Court had Page 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 ignored exhibit A8 by holding that the 1st defendant had refused to receive the same, when the fact remains that exhibit A8 was received by the 1st Defendant which was also proved by Exhibit A9.

28. This Court holds that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, for the reason, the contention of the plaintiff that, the 1st defendant, on the excuse of the marriage of her grand daughters had postponed the execution of the Sale deed, even though the plaintiff was always willing stands proved by the admission of the 1st respondent/4th defendant about the time of marriage of his daughters, which is as under:-

“.//15/05/2005y; vd;Dila mk;kh thjpa[ld; xg;ge;jk; nghl;lhh; vd;whYk; mg;nghJ ehd; cld; ,Ue;njd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ me;j xg;ge;jj;jpy; ehd; rhl;rp ifbahg;gk; nghl;Ls;nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd; mnj njjpapy; U:gha; 1 yl;rk; ml;thd;!; th';fpndd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ xg;ge;jk; U:gha; 28 yl;rj;J 98 Mapuj;jpw;F nghlg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 24/05/2005y; U:gha; 8 yl;rk; vd; mk;kh thjpaplkpUe;J th';fpa[s;shh;/ mnj nghy; 12/08/2005y; U:gha; 4 yl;rj;J 50 Mapuk; thjpaplkpUe;J vd;Dila mk;kh th';fpa[s;shh;/ Page 23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 vd; kfSf;F jpUkzkhfp 10 tUl';fs; MfpapUf;Fk; 2005y; vd;Dila Kjy; kfSf;F jpUkzk; bra;Jitj;njd; vd;why;

                 rhpjhd;/          6   khjk;     fHpj;J          ,uz;lhtJ                kfSf;F    jpUkzk;

                 bra;Jitj;njd;/ ///@

Further, by also the admission made by the 6th Defendant in the Written Statement which was adopted by the Defendants 7-9, it is stated as under:-

"... 4. As a matter of fact the defendant had no reason to procrastinate the matter. The defendant needed the money very much for getting the girls married."

29. The readiness of the Plaintiff is established by the fact that he has already paid Rs. 13,50,000/- which was also admitted by the Defendants and also responded to Exhibit A7 the legal notice by way of his reply Exhibit A8 expressing his readiness and willingness as under:-

"...Even at the time of agreement, though your client undertook to have the revenue records updated 1. with regard to the total extent of land which your client claim to be the owner and in spite of repeated requests by our client, expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract, your Page 24/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 client, after receiving substantial advance amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only) was deliberately keeping quiet and did not take any steps to fulfill her part of the contract."

30. It is not the case of the Defendants that they have terminated the agreement of sale and returned the advance amount. The Defendants retained the advance amount and issued Exhibit A7 dated 18.03.2006, which was despatched on 24.03.2006 and was received on 25.03.2006 by the Plaintiff, wherein the 1st Defendant gave 2 weeks' time to the Plaintiff to register the sale deed from the date of receipt of the notice. The factum of the Plaintiff having responded to the same immediately, within 2 days from the date of receipt of the notice, expressing his readiness and willingness fulfils the requirements of the section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

31. On the other hand, the 1st Defendant having received the reply notice, Exhibit A-8, did not respond to the same either by action or by way of rejoinder. The factum of readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff is proved from the specific contentions of the Plaintiff found both in the reply notice Exhibit A-8, as well as from paragraph Nos. 5-8 of the plaint. Page 25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025

32. The 1st defendant after receiving substantial amount as advance was dodging to execute the sale deed and was also refusing to have the land measured by the revenue authorities to determine the actual physical extent available, is established by the fact that the respondents even now are not willing to have the land measured with and also did not of the produce the patta either before the Trial Court or even before this Court to disprove the contentions Appellant/Plaintiff. Exhibit A-ll is a substantial proof of the capability of the plaintiff to have the sale completed, which in the present has to determined, only with the reference to the available extent of land which the plaintiff claims to be of only 38.40 cents as per the revenue records mutated in the name of the 1st defendant in the year 2020, which was also the stand of the plaintiff in Exhibit A8.

33. As was held by the Apex Court in the case Sukhbir Singh [(1997) 2 SCC 200], it is not necessary for the plaintiff to carry the money from the date of the suit till the date of the decree, but the plaintiff has to establish only his capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. The Supreme Court in the case of A.Kanthamani [(2017) 4 SCC 654] has dealt with the expression Page 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 "readiness and willingness" by holding that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. The relevant paragraph is as under:-

"...24. The expression "readiness and willingness" has been the subject- matter of interpretation in many cases even prior to its insertion in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. While examining the question as to how and in what manner, the plaintiff is required to prove his financial readiness so as to enable him to claim specific performance of the contract/agreement, the Privy Council in a leading case which arose from the Indian courts (Bombay) in Bank of India Ltd. v. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy [Bank of India Ltd. v. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy, 1949 SCC OnLine PC 81 : (1949-50) 77 IA 76: AIR 1950 PC 90], approved the view taken by Chagla A.C.J., and held inter alia that "it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction to prove his readiness and willingness."

25. The following observations of the Privy Council are apposite :

(Jamsetji case [Bank of India Ltd. v. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy, 1949 SCC OnLine PC 81 : (1949-50) 77 IA 76: AIR 1950 PC 90], SCC OnLine PC) "... Their Lordships agree with this conclusion and the grounds on which it was based. It is true that Plaintiff 1 stated that he was buying for himself, that he had not sufficient ready money to meet the price and that no definite arrangements had been made for finding it at the time of repudiation. But in Page 27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 order to prove himself ready and willing a purchaser has not necessarily to produce the money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. The question is one of fact, and in the present case the appellate court had ample material on which to found the view it reached. Their Lordships would only add in this connection that they fully concur with Chagla A.C.J. when he says: 'In my opinion, on the evidence already on record it was sufficient for the court to come to the conclusion that Plaintiff 1 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was not necessary for him to work out actual figures and satisfy the court what specific amount a bank would have advanced on the mortgage of his property and the pledge of these shares. I do not think that any jury if the matter was left to the jury in England-would have come to the conclusion that a man, in the position in which the plaintiff was, was not ready and willing to pay the purchase price of the shares which he had bought from Defendants 1 and 2.' For the foregoing reasons, their Lordships answer Question (4) in the affirmative."

26. This Court in Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Singh (Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 200: AIR 1996 SC 2510] followed the aforesaid principle with these words: (SCC p. 202, pa?? 5) "5. Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents Page 28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 should have ready cash with them. The fact that they attended the Sub- Registrar's office to have the sale deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar is a positive fact to prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had with them the needed money with them for payment at the time of registration. It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. It would, therefore, be clear that the courts below have appropriately exercised their discretion for granting the relief of specific performance to the respondents on sound principles of law." ..."

34. Therefore the plaintiff having pleaded in the terms of the section 16

(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement dated 15.05.2005.

35. Therefore, the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in OS No. 241 of 2006, on the file the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for. The Respondents/Defendants are directed to execute the sale deed in favour Page 29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 of the Appellant/Plaintiff, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after receiving the balance sale consideration, at the rate of Rs. 42,000/- per cent, to the extent of the actual available land.

36. This Appeal Suit is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(J.NISHA BANU J.) M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 26-08-2025 nvsri To

1. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet

2.The Section Officer, V.R.SEction, High Court, Madras. Page 30/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm ) AS NO. 626 of 2025 J. NISHA BANU, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

nvsri AS NO. 626 of 2025 26.08.2025 Page 31/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 04:38:04 pm )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court