S.A. No. 1870 of 1997. Case: P. Dharmaraj Vs Vedhamanickam and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberS.A. No. 1870 of 1997
CounselFor Appellant: G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Adv.
JudgesN. Authinathan, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateMarch 23, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


N. Authinathan, J.

  1. The above second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.01.1997, passed in A.S. No. 115 of 1994, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.03.1994, passed in O.S. No. 250 of 1991, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin.

  2. Parties herein are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

  3. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 250 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

    The first defendant is the owner of the suit house site bearing No. 176. He entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the site for Rs. 7,000/-. On 01.08.1986, he received an advance of Rs. 6,500/-. The plaintiff has to get the sale deed executed within a period of 18 months from the date of agreement, after payment of balance of the sale price. The plaintiff called upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed by way of a notice dated 16.11.1990. Despite service of notice, he has not come forward to send a reply. Hence, the suit.

  4. The first defendant resisted the suit. According to him, he was forced to sign on unfilled stamp papers by one Arul Raj and those stamp papers were used for fabricating the suit sale agreement. He has not agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. He has also denied receipt of any money from the plaintiff. The second defendant purchased the suit site from the first plaintiff on 05.09.1986. According to him, he is a bonafide purchaser for value.

  5. During trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1. He examined two witnesses in support of his case. The defendants 1 & 2 have been examined as D.Ws.1 & 2 respectively.

  6. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the first defendant executed the suit sale agreement. However, it has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The trial court has also held that the second defendant is a bonafide purchaser for value. The suit was dismissed.

  7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 115 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree. However, it directed the first defendant to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT