A.S. No. 117 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011. Case: R. Lakshmi Bai and Ors. Vs M.V. Rani. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberA.S. No. 117 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: H. Nazirudeen, Adv. and For Respondents: T. Sri Krishna Bhagavat for P. Subba Reddy, Advs.
JudgesN. Sathish Kumar, J.
IssueIndian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92
Judgement DateApril 07, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Judgment:

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

  1. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Chengalpet granting specific performance of the agreement dated 26.1.2004, the unsuccessful defendant filed the present appeal.

  2. The parties are arrayed as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

  3. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows:

    The defendants executed agreement dated 26.01.2004 for sale to an extent of 14.95 acres for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,37,500/- and received an advance of Rs. one lakh on the date of agreement. They have also agreed to produce encumbrance certificate and other documents within 30 days. They also failed to survey the land as agreed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 30.06.2006. However, the defendants issued a reply with false allegations. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the inception. Hence, the suit.

  4. Brief contentions of the defendants are as follows:

    It is the case of the defendants that one Ramesh Babu, who is the son-in-law of the plaintiff approached the defendants and shown interest to purchase the schedule mentioned property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,37,500/-. Since, the said Ramesh Babu was introduced by one I.S. Yuvaraj. The defendants have signed the sale agreement on 26.01.2004 at 10.00 p.m., believing the words of the said Ramesh Babu even before receiving a copy of the sale agreement. They have not seen the plaintiff in person nor received a copy of the sale agreement dated 26.07.2004. In the sale agreement two months time was stipulated to complete the agreement. After obtaining the signature of the defendants, the said Ramesh Babu nor the plaintiff approached the defendants to complete the sale proceedings. It is the further contention of the defendants that on 30.06.2006, after receipt of the legal notice from the plaintiff counsel, they have come to know that the sale agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of Ramesh Babu as presumed earlier. It is stated by the defendant that on 19.11.2005, the defendant has issued a legal notice along with a cheque for Rs. one lakh drawn in favour of one Pdamaja wife of Ramesh Babu. She is none other than the daughter of the plaintiff. After the receipt of the above letter, they kept quite for six months, thereafter, a reply was written by the said Padmaja stating that she is no way connected with the agreement. It is the contention of the defendants that the above said letter was sent by the defendants to the said Padmaja stating that the agreement itself was cancelled. They also issued a public notice on 26.05.2006 to that effect. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

  5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the followings issues were framed by the trial Court:

    1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract as prayed for?

    2. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?

    3. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

  6. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex. A.1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex. B.1 to B.5 were marked.

  7. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for specific performance. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the unsuccessful defendant.

  8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the sale agreement was executed in the night hours at the instance of one Ramesh Babu and Yuvaraj. The appellants were not aware of the purchaser's name at the relevant time. In fact, they were under the impression that the agreement was executed in favour of the Ramesh Babu's wife one Padmaja. The time stipulated in the agreement is two months to complete the transaction. Whereas, after a lapse of 30 months from the date of agreement, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and only after receipt of legal notice they came to know that the purchaser's name is shown as plaintiff. Till such time, they bonafidely believed that they have signed the document only in the name of Ramesh Babu's wife Padmaja. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that after two months of the agreement, they...

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