Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1675 (MAD)

M. Rajendiran Santhi (died) v. S. Krishnan (died)

2019-06-18

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2018 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2018 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of specific performance. 4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan had agreed to sell the suit property in their favour for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in evidence thereof, executed a sale agreement on 24.08.2000 and received a sum of Rs.8,000/- as advance on the date of the sale agreement and agreed to receive the balance sum and execute the sale deed at any time as required by the plaintiffs and further, according to the plaintiffs, the possession of the suit property had been handed over to them by the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan on the date of the sale agreement and further, according to them, inasmuch as they had been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and obtain the sale deed from the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan, for one reason or the other, the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan had been postponing the same and after his demise, the plaintiffs had been requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement and even the defendants had been evading the same for one or the other reason and left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiffs, they had issued the legal notice on 07.10.2005 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed on the receipt of the balance sale consideration and the defendants, instead of complying with the abovesaid demand, issued a reply notice containing false allegations and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs. 5. 5. The defendants, in toto, had disputed the sale agreement projected by the plaintiffs and according to them, no such sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned and also contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek and obtain the relief prayed for as they had never been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at any point of time and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. 6. On the abovesaid pleadings, the parties went for trial and it is found that along with the abovesaid suit, the suit laid by the first defendant in O.S.No.341 of 2005 was also taken up for joint trial. 7. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss both the suits. Impugning the judgment and decree passed in their suit for specific performance, the plaintiffs have preferred the first appeal. The first appellate Court also concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiffs for enforcing the sale agreement on 24.08.2000. On a perusal of the sale agreement, it is found that no specific time had been fixed for the completion of the sale. However, even if no time has been fixed in the sale agreement for the completion of the transaction, the agreement holder viz., the plaintiffs should endeavour and ensure that the sale transaction is completed at the earliest point of time and accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiffs should have endeavoured to pay the balance sum of Rs.2,000/- to the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan or for the matter, the defendants and obtain the sale deed at the earliest point of time. Even as per the case of the plaintiffs, they had not evinced interest to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the sale deed from the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan or the defendants, as the case may be, pursuant to the sale agreement. Even as per the case of the plaintiffs, they had not evinced interest to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain the sale deed from the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan or the defendants, as the case may be, pursuant to the sale agreement. Though the plaintiffs would plead that they had been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and it is only the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan or for the matter, the defendants, who had been evading on some pretext or the other, with reference to the abovesaid case, absolutely, there is no material placed on record worth acceptance as determined by the Courts below. If really, the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan or the defendants had been evading the execution of the sale deed on some pretext or the other, nothing prevented the plaintiffs from enforcing the sale agreement immediately on seeing the defiant attitude of the defendants in not coming forward with the execution of the sale deed. On the other hand, it is found that the legal notice had come to be issued by the plaintiffs calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed only on 07.10.2005 and the abovesaid legal notice has been challenged by the reply notice on the part of the defendants on 15.10.2005 and only thereafter, it is found that the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiffs on 24.04.2006. 9. In the light of the abovesaid factual matrix, if really the plaintiffs had been earnest in accomplishing the sale transaction one way or the other, as rightly found and determined by the Courts below, right from the inception of the sale agreement, the plaintiffs should be always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and complete the sale transaction. On the other hand, it is found that nearly five years after the execution of the sale agreement, for the first time, the plaintiffs had issued legal notice only on 07.10.2005 and prior to 07.10.2005, absolutely, there is no material on the part of the plaintiffs evidencing that they had been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and obtain the sale deed as contemplated under the sale agreement. On the other hand, as could be seen from the available materials on record, it is found that only after the first defendant had laid the suit against the plaintiffs for the reliefs of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property in O.S.No.341 of 2005, it is found that the plaintiffs had chosen to issue the legal notice on 07.10.2005 and thereafter, had come forward with the present suit. All the abovesaid factors would only go to indicate that, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the plaintiffs are not interested in purchasing the suit property pursuant to the sale agreement and accordingly, they had not evinced any interest to go ahead with the enforcement of the sale agreement and in such view of the matter, as determined by the Courts below, there is complete absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to purchase the suit property and the readiness and willingness being the sine qua non factor for enabling the plaintiffs to obtain the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance and the abovesaid factor being completely absent as above pointed out, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be wholly justified in declining the relief of specific performance prayed for by the plaintiffs. 10. Though the plaintiffs would plead that they had been handed over the suit property on the date of the sale agreement, with reference to their abovesaid claim, absolutely, there is no acceptable and reliable materials and the said point has also been correctly determined by the Courts below against the plaintiffs. No interference is called for with reference to the same. 11. In the light of the abovesaid factors, the Courts below, particularly, the first appellate Court had appreciated the materials placed on record in the proper perspective and considering the issues involved in the matter, both factual wise as well as legal wise, had correctly determined that the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the relief of specific performance as prayed for and in such view of the matter, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Courts below declining the relief of specific performance prayed for by the plaintiffs. 12. In the light of the above discussions, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the second appeal. 12. In the light of the above discussions, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the second appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.