Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Ponnuswami Gounder vs Rama Boyan And Ors. on 24 April, 1978

Kannuperumal And Anr. vs Suseela, Mentally Retarded Person, ... on 17 May, 2004

12. There is no force in the argument advanced as such by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 since, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale claiming that the defendants 1 to 3 executed the sale agreement dated 20.3.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4, who are brothers, agreeing to convey the suit property for Rs. 1,20,000 and also received a sum of Rs. 20,000 as advance at the time of agreement of sale and to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000 within five months. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 also filed the suit on 3.4.1995. After the stiff resistance made by the defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement, the parties went on trial and the first plaintiff also examined as P.W. 1 on the side of the plaintiffs, who has spoken the case of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit agreement and also marked Ex.A-3, the fixed deposit receipt, as per which the plaintiffs 1 to 4 deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards balance sale consideration in the State Bank of India, Tidivanam and thereafter, after examination of D.W.1 on the side of the defendants 1 to 3 and since D.W.2 examined in part was not available for further cross-examination and when the suit was posted for further examination of witnesses on the side of the defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs 1 and 3 informed the Court through the first plaintiff that they are not willing to continue the suit and sought permission to withdraw the amount deposited towards balance of sale consideration, which made the counsel, who appeared for the plaintiffs 1 to 4, to withdraw the vakalath. Thereafter, the petition I.A. No. 353 of 2003, subject matter of this revision has been filed to transpose the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants 4 and 5. Though the said petition was opposed by the plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the counter filed in I.A. No. 353 of 2003, that since previously there was dispute between the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in dividing the properties in which connection there was also a partition suit and therefore, if the suit is decreed for specific performance, there will be unnecessary complication in dividing the suit property and they did not choose to appear in this revision and to contest. Therefore, the only contention raised by the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 is that inasmuch as it was alleged that the agreement was executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4, the suit cannot be decreed in part for specific performance favouring the plaintiffs 2 and 4 and as such, the suit has to be withdrawn. The position is settled by the judgment of this Court in Ponnuswami Gounder v. Boyan and Ors., (cited supra) and also by the dictum rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Col Harbans Waraiah, (cited supra) that in such case, the remaining plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific performance. It follows, the plaintiffs 1 and 3, who are not supporting the case of the plaintiffs 2 and 4 and after the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 supporting the case of the plaintiffs and also admitted all those facts in the counter filed in I.A. No. 353 of 2003, subject matter of this revision, have to be transposed as defendants 4 and 5 for effective and complete adjudication to settle all the questions involved in the suit. Inasmuch as already the plaintiffs 1 and 3 joining hands of the plaintiffs 2 and 4 have filed the suit for specific performance and also went on with trial by examining the first plaintiff as P.W.1, who deposed supporting the case of the plaintiffs and they also marked the fixed deposit receipt Ex.A-3 and they have not chosen to withdraw the suit, the plaintiffs 2 and 4 are entitled to continue the suit for specific performance in respect of the plaintiffs, viz., plaintiffs 2 and 4, by transposing the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants 4 and 5. In case the plaintiffs 1 and 3 seek to withdraw the money deposited by them, it is open to the plaintiffs 2 and 4 to proceed with the trial of the suit for specific performance and for decree by paying the entire sale consideration. With that view, the order of the trial Court in refusing to transpose the plaintiffs 1 and 3 as defendants 4 and 5 being improper and erroneous is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramamani vs Pitchaimani on 6 February, 2017

It is true that in the above judgment by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court the right of one of the agreement holders to enforce the agreement as against the owner is recognised. However, the facts are slightly different. That is also a case where sale agreement was entered into by two purchasers. One of the purchasers backed out and took back earnest money. However, this situation was anticipated even at the time of entering into the agreement. It was agreed that if one of the two purchasers did not want to purchase, then it would be open to the other to purchase the whole of the land on payment of entire sale price. In this case, the enforceability of the agreement is not an issue but the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff while filing the suit and seeking relief by offering only 60% of the sale consideration. Hence, the judgment has no application. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponnuswami Gounder v. Rama Boyan and others reported in AIR 1979 Madras 130 wherein this Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S S Sundar - Full Document

S.A.Alagarsamy (Died) vs C.Dharmaraj on 2 March, 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 S.A.(MD)No.843 of 2010 Now the question is whether when one of the joint promisee is not willing to join as a co-plaintiff, whether a suit for specific performance can be maintained. The issue is no longer res integra. There are catena of decisions holding that such a suit is very much maintainable. One such decision is reported in AIR 1979 Madras 130 (Ponnuswami Gounder Vs. Rama Boyan and Others). In the said decision, it was held that where the contract was in favour of more than one person and if some of them are not willing to join as plaintiffs, the others could file a suit for specific performance of contract impleading those who are not willing, as plaintiffs and a person cannot be prevented from filing a suit merely because he is only a joint promisee and other promisees have refused to join him in filing the suit. Of course in the said decision, it has been held that the inter-se rights of the plaintiff and the unwilling joint promisee will have to be worked out separately. In this case, the defendants 1 and 2 had executed a joint mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the third defendant. It also seen that the plaintiff and the third defendant are in joint possession of the suit property. Therefore even while sustaining the impugned judgment and decree, which have directed the execution of the sale deed conveying the suit property in its entirety in favour of the plaintiff, the right between the plaintiff and the third defendant will have to be worked out separately. The said issue is left open.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Jagdish Singh And Ors. vs Ram Lal And Ors. on 23 March, 1987

9. There is direct case on the legal position which has arisen for determination in the present appeal. It is the case of Ponnuswami Gounder v. Rama Boyan, AIR 1979 Mad 130. The facts of this case were that the suit properties were originally owned by the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3. They sold the same for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- under a sale deed dt. 6-5-1969. On the date of sale, defendant No. 1, who came up as an appellant before the Madras High Court and who had purchased the property, executed an agreement to reconvey the same to the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, within five years from the date of sale on receipt of consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. In order to enforce this agreement of reconveyance, the plaintiffs filed the suit. They tendered entire consideration amount within the stipulated time and asked for the execution of the deed of sale by defendant No. 1. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did not co-operate with the plaintiffs and, so, the plaintiffs alone filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to reconvey after depositing amount of Rs. 2,500/- in the Court. The main contention of defendant No. 1 was that since the agreement to reconvey was in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiffs alone would not be entitled to sue and, in any case, since defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did not want any reconveyance of the properties, a decree for specific performance could not be granted in favour of the plaintiffs alone. It may be mentioned that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a written statement clearly saying that they did not want any reconveyance, that they had no money to pay and they were thus giving up their right of the specific performance of the agreement to reconvey. The question that arise for determination was whether the suit could be maintained by some of the promisees only as plaintiffs in a case in which relief asked for is for specific performance, especially when some of the co-promisees did not want to enforce the contract.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1