Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Pachaiappan And Ors. vs S.P. Koon Mari on 25 June, 1996

Pankajam Parthasarathy And Five Others vs Kasturi Guna Singh on 27 September, 2000

50. However, on the facts of the present case, the false case set up by the plaintiff as on the material aspect and affects the main case on the question whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Ultimately, it would depend upon the facts of each case whether false case is material or immaterial and I hold that the plea put forward regarding the availability of the amount of balance of sale consideration is a material consideration and hence, the ratio of the Division Bench of this- Court in Pachaiappan's case, 1996 (2) LW 1 is not applicable. I hold that the statement of the plaintiff in the plaint that she was ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration and complete the sale transaction cannot be stated to be true in view of her inability to comply with the orders of the Court to deposit the balance of sale consideration. She has also not established that she was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement by paying the balance of sale consideration to the defendants from 1978 to 1981 when the suit was instituted.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Tmt.Kanjana Baskaran (Deceased) vs R.Sundaram on 14 August, 2023

22. The principle that the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted to a person who has put forward a false case is based on the doctrine that one who seeks equity must do equity. In this case, the plaintiffs have not set up a false claim. More so, though we find some variance in the evidence of PW1 that alone will not dis-entitle him to get the relief of specific performance. Our opinion is strengthened by the observations made by this Court in Pachaiappan and two others v. S.P.Koon Mari reported in 1996-2-LW-1, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed that if in a particular case, the false claim set up by the plaintiff is immaterial and does not affect the main case in any manner, Court shall not refuse the relief.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Kulla Kone And Four Others vs Gopal Kone on 4 September, 1998

11. Conceding that the respondent had not made precise pleadings and that there are variations between pleading and proof, still the person seeking to enforce an agreement for reconveyance cannot be refused relief. The ratio of the decision of the Bench of this court in Pachaiappan and others v. S.P.Koon Mari, 1996 (II) L.W 1 : 1996 (II) MLJ 378 will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Bench dealing with a case of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subramani vs S.Devaraj on 14 February, 2017

In this view of the matter, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff should be denied the relief of specific performance on the ground of his alleged approach to the court with unclean hands. The above observations were in effect approved by a Division Bench in Pachaiappan and others v. S.P.Koon Mari reported in 1996 (2) MLJ 378. In the light of the above legal principles, I do not think that the plaintiff should be non-suited for claiming that he has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- which has not been established.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Arunachala Mudaliar vs Jayalakshmi Ammal And V.R. ... on 9 January, 2003

11. He also submitted that the agreement, Ex-B5 which is relied upon by appellant itself shows that the tenancy has been cancelled and therefore his case that he is in possession as a cultivating tenant cannot be believed. It was also submitted that the oral and documentary evidence prove beyond doubt that the second defendant did not have the wherewithal to purchase the property and Exs-B4 and B5 had been brought about only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. It was also submitted by him that the explanation to Section 16(c) shows that it was not necessary that the plaintiff who deposit the amount into Court or produce cash to show his readiness and willingness. It was also submitted that these grounds that were now urged of "lack of readiness, willingness and unclean hands" were not urged earlier at the time of trial and therefore it was not open to the appellant to raise this ground at this late stage. Learned Senior counsel relied on 1996 1 LW 675 (GURUSWAMI GOUNDER v KESAVA REDDIAR AND ANOTHER), 1996 2 LW Page 1 (PACHAIAPPAN AND OTHERS v S.P.KOON MARI).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 39 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Duraisingam vs Mr. S.R.Jagannathan on 27 August, 2015

15.3. If that be so, assuming the payments of Rs.3619.85 and Rs.7186 /- were true, we do not find any reason for making such payments by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant when he had accepted to discharge the mortgage loan payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the plaintiff/respondents herein that they made the above payments viz., Rs.3,619.85 and Rs.7,186/- in spite of their obligation to discharge the mortgage debts payable by the 1s t defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. It is only because of such inordinate delay in discharging the said mortgage debt by the plaintiff, the B Schedule property was brought to sale by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A14 dated 21.2.1977, and only one day thereafter, the plaintiff has hassled to discharge the mortgage debt by making a payment of Rs.11,126.60 on 22.2.1977, which fact would evidently prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to discharge the mortgage debt payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, as per the agreement dated 19.1.1975, and the case of the plaintiff is therefore false and liable to be rejected. The plaintiff, having thus come with a false testimony, is, in our considered opinion, not entitled for the equitable relief as prayed for, as per the ratio laid down in SIRIGINEEDHI SUBBARAYADU Vs. KOPANATHI TATAYYA & OTHERS reported in 1937 MWN 1158, referred supra, which was followed in PACHAIAPPAN & OTHERS Vs. S.P.KOON MARI reported in 1996(2) LAW WEEKLY 1.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - S Vimala - Full Document

Duraisingam vs Mr. S.R.Jagannathan on 27 August, 2015

15.3. If that be so, assuming the payments of Rs.3619.85 and Rs.7186 /- were true, we do not find any reason for making such payments by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant when he had accepted to discharge the mortgage loan payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the plaintiff/respondents herein that they made the above payments viz., Rs.3,619.85 and Rs.7,186/- in spite of their obligation to discharge the mortgage debts payable by the 1s t defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. It is only because of such inordinate delay in discharging the said mortgage debt by the plaintiff, the B Schedule property was brought to sale by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A14 dated 21.2.1977, and only one day thereafter, the plaintiff has hassled to discharge the mortgage debt by making a payment of Rs.11,126.60 on 22.2.1977, which fact would evidently prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to discharge the mortgage debt payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, as per the agreement dated 19.1.1975, and the case of the plaintiff is therefore false and liable to be rejected. The plaintiff, having thus come with a false testimony, is, in our considered opinion, not entitled for the equitable relief as prayed for, as per the ratio laid down in SIRIGINEEDHI SUBBARAYADU Vs. KOPANATHI TATAYYA & OTHERS reported in 1937 MWN 1158, referred supra, which was followed in PACHAIAPPAN & OTHERS Vs. S.P.KOON MARI reported in 1996(2) LAW WEEKLY 1.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Vimala - Full Document

Valliammal @ Valliatha, Eswari And ... vs Angammal, K. Theenamuthu, K.K. ... on 6 March, 2002

15.3. If that be so, assuming the payments of Rs.3619.85 and Rs.7186/- were true, we do not find any reason for making such payments by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant when he had accepted to discharge the mortgage loan payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the plaintiff/respondents herein that they made the above payments viz., Rs.3,619.85 and Rs.7,186/- in spite of their obligation to discharge the mortgage debts payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. It is only because of such inordinate delay in discharging the said mortgage debt by the plaintiff, the 'B' Schedule property was brought to sale by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A14 dated 21.2.1977, and only one day thereafter, the plaintiff has hassled to discharge the mortgage debt by making a payment of Rs.11,126.60 on 22.2.1977, which fact would evidently prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to discharge the mortgage debt payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, as per the agreement dated 19.1.1975, and the case of the plaintiff is therefore false and liable to be rejected. The plaintiff, having thus come with a false testimony, is, in our considered opinion, not entitled for the equitable relief as prayed for, as per the ratio laid down in SIRIGINEEDHI SUBBARAYADU Vs. KOPANATHI TATAYYA & OTHERS reported in 1937 MWN 1158, referred supra, which was followed in PACHAIAPPAN & OTHERS Vs. S.P.KOON MARI reported in 1996(2) LAW WEEKLY 1.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Valliammal @ Valliatha vs Angammal on 6 March, 2002

15.3. If that be so, assuming the payments of Rs.3619.85 and Rs.7186 /- were true, we do not find any reason for making such payments by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant when he had accepted to discharge the mortgage loan payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. Therefore, we are unable to accept the case of the plaintiff/respondents herein that they made the above payments viz., Rs.3,619.85 and Rs.7,186/- in spite of their obligation to discharge the mortgage debts payable by the 1s t defendant to the Land Development Bank, Kangayam. It is only because of such inordinate delay in discharging the said mortgage debt by the plaintiff, the B Schedule property was brought to sale by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.A14 dated 21.2.1977, and only one day thereafter, the plaintiff has hassled to discharge the mortgage debt by making a payment of Rs.11,126.60 on 22.2.1977, which fact would evidently prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to discharge the mortgage debt payable by the 1st defendant to the Land Development Bank, as per the agreement dated 19.1.1975, and the case of the plaintiff is therefore false and liable to be rejected. The plaintiff, having thus come with a false testimony, is, in our considered opinion, not entitled for the equitable relief as prayed for, as per the ratio laid down in SIRIGINEEDHI SUBBARAYADU Vs. KOPANATHI TATAYYA & OTHERS reported in 1937 MWN 1158, referred supra, which was followed in PACHAIAPPAN & OTHERS Vs. S.P.KOON MARI reported in 1996(2) LAW WEEKLY 1.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - P D Premkumar - Full Document
1   2 Next