Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The agreement is of the year 2006. Nearly a decade has passed by. Out of the total consideration of Rs.6,35,000/-, the Plaintiff had paid only a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as advance. It is also a matter common knowledge that price of properties has increased considerably during the past 10 years. Normally inadequacy of consideration or raise in prices during the pendency of the litigation cannot be taken into account for either granting or refusing the relief of specific performance. The Plaintiff is also a pensioner. While exercising the 8 discretion in favour of the Plaintiff, I am constrained to consider the equities also. Keeping in mind the fact that the advance paid is not a major portion of the sale consideration, I feel that it will be in the interests of justice to direct the Plaintiff to pay an additional consideration over and above the amount agreed to. Considering the fact that the property is situated in Mettupalayam town and taking into account the increase in price of real estate in the past 10 years, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met by directing the Plaintiff to pay an additional consideration of Rs.4 lakhs apart from Rs. 6,35,000/- which has already been paid/deposited by the Plaintiff.”

25. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed in O.S. No. 139 of 2001 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore and also the materials available on record.

26. On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, it is found that the learned Trial Judge, had not answered each of every issue framed by him. It is considered that the learned Trial Judge, had arrived at a just conclusion based on appreciation of evidence of the Plaintiff as P.W-1 and evidence of the Defendant as D.W-1. The Plaintiffs have filed documents to show that they had enough resources. In the cross examination, the P.W-1 was confronted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant stating that only a short period of time, in each of the Bank accounts, amounts are made available and that too not more than one lakh and subsequently whatever amount is available was withdrawn after a short period. In other words, it was stated that at no particular point of time, there was more than Rs.6 lakhs available in the Bank account. Though the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:20 pm ) Plaintiffs contend that they are capable and/or ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs, it was not forthcoming in the form of acceptable evidence. On the other hand, it was contended that the trial court did not seek them to deposit the amount and therefore, they did not deposit it. This submission of the Plaintiffs cannot be countenanced. To prove the bona fides, the Plaintiffs can voluntarily deposit the amount into the Court. There is no permission is required for the Plaintiffs to do so. It is their fundamental duty to show that they have got the required amount to pay to the Defendant for execution of the sale deed in their favour. In the Judgment passed by this Court in A.S. No. 863 of 2009, mentioned supra, this Court has held that nearly a decade has passed and the purchaser has shown only a paltry sum as advance. It was further held that in the interregnum, the price of the property would be sky-rocketed and the Plaintiffs cannot be expected to purchase the property at the price which was fixed ten years before. The observations made by this Court will apply to the facts of this case in full force. In the present case, the agreement was dated 14.11.1994. The suit was filed in the year 1996 before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and it was subsequently transferred and re-numbered as O.S. No. 139 of 2001. The Judgment, which is impugned in this appeal, was passed on 22.12.2006. Now, we are in the year 2025 and almost three decades have gone by from the date of entering into the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:20 pm ) agreement of sale dated 14.11.1994. While so, this Court is not inclined to invoke the discretionary relief to grant a decree for specific relief. It is also to be noted that due to pendency of the litigation, the period had lapsed. In all cases, by virtue of the delay in adjudicating the case, a decree for specific performance may not be refused. But in this case, the decree for specific performance is not only refused on the ground of efflux of time, but the attitude of the Plaintiffs in not depositing the balance sale consideration atleast during the trial in the suit. The argument that the trial court did not insist the Plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration does not augur well and it only goes against the interest of the Plaintiffs to seek for equitable relief.