S.A. Nos. 1464 and 1465 of 2010. Case: K. Mani Vs M.D. Jayavel and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | S.A. Nos. 1464 and 1465 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V. Subramani, Adv. And For Respondents: Y. Jyothish Chander, Adv. |
| Judges | G. Rajasuria, J. |
| Issue | Specific Relief Act - Section 16; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53A, 105 and 106; Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1A); Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001; Indian Stamp Act - Schedule - Article 5; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 54; Tamil ... |
| Citation | (2011) 7 MLJ 264 |
| Judgement Date | June 10, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
G. Rajasuria, J.
-
These second appeals are focussed by K. Mani-the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 104 of 2005 and Defendant in O.S. No. 91 of 2007, animadverting upon the judgment and decrees dated 31.8.2010 passed in A.S. Nos. 1 and 13 of 2010 by the District Judge, No. II, Kancheepuram, confirming the dismissal decree dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, in O.S. No. 104 of 2005 for specific performance filed by the Appellant herein and also in confirming the decreeing of the suit O.S. No. 91 of 2007 for eviction and for recovery of possession filed by the Respondents herein.
-
The parties, for the sake of convenience are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
-
A summation and summarisation, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals, would run thus:
(i) The Appellant herein/Mani filed the suit O.S. No. 104 of 2005 for specific performance of an agreement to sell, with the following prayer:
-
to direct the Defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff at his costs after receipt of the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,78,999/- within a time to be fixed by this Court. (extracted as such)
(ii) The Respondents herein filed the written statement resisting the said suit.
(iii) In turn, the Respondents herein, namely, Jayavel and 7 others, as Plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 91 of 2007 for evicting the Appellant herein/Mani on the ground that the tenancy in favour of Mani was terminated by the Plaintiffs/landlords and that he should vacate and hand over possession.
(iv) The following are the reliefs found set out in O.S. No. 91 of 2007:
to evict the Defendant from the suit property and to order recovery of possession of the same in favour of the Plaintiffs, directing to pay a sum of Rs. 6,600/- as the arrears of rents for the period from 1.2.2002 to 30.9.2004 in favour of the Plaintiffs, directing an enquiry for determination of the mesne profits for the unlawful use and occupation of the suit property by the Defendant from the date of the suit at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month till delivery of possession in favour of the Plaintiffs and for costs of the suit. (extracted as such)
(v) Written statement was filed by the Appellant/Mani resisting the suit.
(vi) A joint trial was conducted by the trial Court, after framing issues.
(vii) The first Plaintiff in O.S. No. 91 of 2007 examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A13. Mani/the Appellant herein examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B10.
(viii) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S. No. 104 of 2005 filed by the Appellant/Mani and decreed the suit O.S. No. 97 of 2007 filed by the Respondents/Jayavel and others.
(ix) As against those judgment and decrees, two appeals were filed by the Appellant/Mani for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decrees of the trial Court.
-
-
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decrees, these second appeals have been filed by Mani on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:
S.A. No. 1464 of 2011:
(a) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the Appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, contrary to the provisions contained in explanation I and II of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?
(b) Whether the Courts below were correct in holding that there is material alteration in the sale agreement in Ex.B1?
(c) Whether the Courts below were correct in presuming the month as 'May' and the period stipulated as 12 in the absence of any evidence?
(d) Whether the Courts below were correct in interpreting the sale agreement Ex.B1 as materially altered as it is not reasonably possible to make an alteration of such nature, which is impossible in a computer printed out documents Ex.B1?
(e) Whether the Appellant is not entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act having satisfied the requirements of the said provisions?
S.A. No. 1465 of 2011:
-
Whether the tenancy was subsisting on the date of plaint in O.S. No. 91 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Kancheepuram?
-
Whether the suit for eviction based on the tenancy is maintainable?
-
Whether the notice of termination under Ex.A7 is valid in law?
-
Whether the Respondents are not barred from enforcing any right in respect of the suit property other than the rights conferred under sale agreement Ex.B1 in terms of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act?
-
Whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred in view of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960?
-
Whether the suit is maintainable as framed without proper power or authority?
-
-
I hark back to the principles as found embodied in the following judgment of the Honourable Apex Court:
(2006) 5 SCC 545 - Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal;
-
(iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.
and the other precedents emerged in this regard.
(ii) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi], certain excerpts from it would run thus:
-
It is manifest from a bare reading of the section that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements.
(iii) 2008(4) Scale 300 - Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and Anr.
(iv) 2009 (1) L.W. 1 - State Bank of India and Ors. v. S.N. Goya:
-
A bare and plain perusal of the above precedents would exemplify and demonstrate that unless there is any perversity or illegality in the decisions rendered by the Courts below, the question of interfering in second appeal on the finding of facts would not arise and there should be valid legal grounds also for interference.
-
It is therefore just and necessary to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this matter.
-
The learned Counsel for the second Appellant/Mani would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
(i) Consequent upon Ex.B1-the sale agreement, which emerged admitted between the landlords i.e. Jayavel and others and Mani, the tenancy in favour of Mani got extinguished automatically and the possession of Mani elating to the suit property got itself converted into possession of agreement holder under the said agreement to sell and in such a case, the question of terminating the tenancy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial