Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 76 (MAD)

Sudaliammal v. M. Jayaraj

2019-01-04

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.10.2013, passed in A.S.No.17 of 2013, on the file of IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.12.2012, passed in O.S.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “1. Whether the courts below were right in holding that the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of contract as enunciated under Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? 2. Whether the respondent is legally entitled for the relief of Specific Performance, who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, which are to be performed by him? 3. Whether the respondent was entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance? 4. Whether courts below are justified in exercising the discretionary power by decreeing the suit, when the respondent was totally failed to prove his readiness and willingness as per Section 16(C) of the Act? 5. Whether the courts below are right in exercising its discretionary relief, when the conduct of the respondent / plaintiff does not warrant exercise of such power in his favour? 6. Whether the decree and judgment of the courts below are sustainable, which granted the relief of specific performance, merely on the ground, that the suit was filed in time by the respondent / plaintiff, who miserably failed to prove his conduct? 7. Is the IV Additional District Judge right in confirming the decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent / plaintiff when his conduct does not proved his readiness and willingness? 4. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter, lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 5. 4. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter, lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 5. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for specific performance on the footing that the suit property belongs to the defendant and that in respect of the suit property, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement for the sale of the suit property by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, it is stated that the parties had agreed that the sale consideration should be fixed at Rs.1,650/- per Cent, in all, the total sale consideration had been fixed by the parties at Rs.1,89,750/- and accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the sale agreement on 18.06.2006 and further, it is stated that on the date of the sale agreement, the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant and both parties agreed that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.39,750/- should be tendered by the plaintiff to the defendant within 1 ½ years from the date of the sale agreement i.e. on or before 18.12.2007 and inasmuch as the plaintiff had advanced a substantial portion of the sale consideration to the defendant, it is stated that the defendant had put the plaintiff in the possession of the suit property and further, it is also stated that despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and in fact, the plaintiff having tendered the balance consideration on 01.07.2007, the defendant having evaded to receive the same and delayed the completion of the sale transaction one way or the other and left with no other alternative, it is stated that the plaintiff had been necessitated to issue a legal notice to the defendant, on 06.07.2007, calling upon her to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in his favour and on the other hand, it is stated that the defendant instead of complying with the directions made by way of the legal notice, sent a false reply, without any basis and the averments contained in the reply notice are false and accordingly, the plaintiff had been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs. 6. 6. The defendant resisted the suit by putting forth the case that the defendant did not agree to sell the suit property to the plaintiff as recited in the plaint and that the plaintiff and the defendant did not agree for the sale consideration of Rs.1,89,750/- and not executed any sale agreement in respect of the suit property on 18.06.2006 as putforth in the plaint and further, disputed the case of the plaintiff that he had tendered a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to her as advance and also challenged the case of the plaintiff that following the sale agreement, she has put the plaintiff in the possession of the suit property and according to the defendant, she had no necessity to sell the suit property to anyone, including the plaintiff and not seen the plaintiff at any point of time and not agreed to sell the suit property to him and according to her, the sale agreement had been fabricated and forged by the plaintiff with a view to grab the suit property belonging to the defendant, inasmuch as the plaintiff's property is situated adjacent to the suit property and accordingly, to the notice sent by the plaintiff, she has sent a reply containing the true facts and furthermore, without prejudice to her rights, it is also stated that the time has been made as the essence of the contract as putforth in the plaint and the case of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to part with the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated is false and on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract on or before 18.12.2007 as fixed in the contract and on that score alone, the plaintiff is dis-entitled to obtain the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance and the suit is also time barred and the suit property continues to be in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant and the plaintiff has no cause of action to institute the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 8. 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 8. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 9. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, owner of the suit property, volunteered to sell the suit property in his favour for a sum of Rs.1,89,750/- and accordingly, the parties had entered into a sale agreement, dated 18.06.2006, marked as Ex.A1 and further stated that on the date of the sale agreement, he had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance to the defendant and the parties agreed to fix the outer time limit of 1 ½ years to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.39,750/- i.e. on or before 18.12.2007 and pursuant to the sale agreement, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had put him in the possession of the suit property and further pleaded that though he had been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by requesting the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in his favour, the defendant had been evading the same on some pretext or the other and left with no other alternative, it is stated by the plaintiff that as the defendant, even after the issuance of the legal notice, did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed and on the other hand, sent a reply repudiating the plaintiff's case by putting forth a false case, accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff has been necessitated to lay the suit. 10. 10. Per contra, the defendant has denied the plaintiff's case in toto and contended that at no point of time, she has agreed to sell the suit property and the plaintiff is not known to her and the plaintiff's property is situated adjacent to the suit property and with a view to grab the suit property, according to her, the plaintiff had created and fabricated the sale agreement as if the parties had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property as putforth in the plaint and also disputed that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to her on the date of the alleged sale agreement and that she has put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property and also disputed the case of the plaintiff that the parties had agreed to complete the sale consideration on or before 18.12.2007 as projected in the plaint. Furthermore, also challenged the plaintiff's case that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and thereby, sought for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 11. Inasmuch as the defendant has disputed the truth and the validity of the sale agreement projected in the matter marked as Ex.A1, the primary duty is cast upon the plaintiff to establish that the sale agreement – Ex.A1 is a true and valid document and that he is entitled to enforce the same against the defendant. It is not in dispute that the suit property belongs to the defendant. Now, according to the plaintiff, the defendant volunteered to sell the suit property to him and accordingly, entered into a sale agreement marked Ex.A1. As above noted, the defendant has disputed the genuineness of Ex.A1 – sale agreement. To establish the truth and validity of Ex.A1 – sale agreement, the plaintiff has examined the attestors to the sale agreement, namely, Joseph Raj and Esakki as P.Ws.2 and 3. As above noted, the defendant has disputed the genuineness of Ex.A1 – sale agreement. To establish the truth and validity of Ex.A1 – sale agreement, the plaintiff has examined the attestors to the sale agreement, namely, Joseph Raj and Esakki as P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws.2 and 3, in their evidence, have testified that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,89,750/- and accordingly, the parties entered into the sale agreement marked as Ex.A1 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant as advance on the date of the sale agreement and that both the parties had agreed to complete the sale transaction on or before 18.12.2007 and that they had attested the sale agreement executed by the plaintiff and the defendant marked as Ex.A1. As rightly determined by the Courts below, particularly, the First Appellate Court, despite the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 by the defendant, nothing has been culled out from them in support of the defence version and against the plaintiff's case. According to the defendant, P.W.2 is the brother of the plaintiff and P.W.3 is the close associate of the plaintiff and therefore, based on their testimony, the plaintiff's case should not be accepted. Merely because P.Ws.2 and 3 are relative / close associate of the plaintiff, that by itself, would not be a ground for disbelieving their evidence, when their evidence is otherwise found to be acceptable, convincing and trustworthy. Some contradictions are attempted to be projected in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 i.e. it is stated during the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 had stated that he had seen the signature of the plaintiff at the time of his attestation and thereby, contended that the defendant had not executed the sale agreement and accordingly, the sale agreement is a forged document. However, as rightly determined by the Courts below, it has not been stated by P.W.2 that he has not seen the signature of the defendant at the time of the attestation nor the sale agreement did not contain the signature of the defendant at the time of his attestation. However, as rightly determined by the Courts below, it has not been stated by P.W.2 that he has not seen the signature of the defendant at the time of the attestation nor the sale agreement did not contain the signature of the defendant at the time of his attestation. Therefore, the abovesaid contradiction, as such, had been blown out of the proportion and considering the evidence of P.W.2 in toto, it is seen that he has clearly averred as to the factum of the parties entering into the sale agreement as putforth by the plaintiff. As regards the evidence of P.W.3, it is stated that he had testified as having taken the defendant's husband also at the time of execution of the sale agreement in respect of the sale transaction. Pointing to the same, it is contended by the defendant that her husband had already expired even prior to 2006 as could be evidenced from his death certificate marked as Ex.B2 and therefore, contended that P.W. 2 is not speaking truth and his evidence should be rejected. However, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, ignoring the abovesaid portion of the evidence of P.W.3, when his evidence is assessed in toto, it is found that he has deposed about the execution of the sale agreement between the parties with reference to the sale of the suit property clearly and without any ambiguity and in such view of the matter, the abovesaid piece of evidence in isolation cannot be a reason for rejecting his evidence in other aspects and in such view of the matter, the discrepancies alleged in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, in my considered opinion, would not in any manner undermine their evidence or the plaintiff's case as such and in such view of the matter, the Courts below are fully justified in relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 for upholding the plaintiff's case as regards the truth and validity of the sale agreement marked as Ex.A1. In addition to that, the Trial Court had endeavoured to compare the signatures of the defendant with her admitted signature and given extensive reasons as regards the similarities and dissimilarities in the signatures found in the sale agreement and her admitted signature and accordingly, on an analysis of the same in a vivid manner as to how the similarities overweighed the dissimilarities and accordingly, on that footing also found that it is only the defendant, who had executed the sale agreement by putting her signature and on that ground also accepted the plaintiff's case as regards the truth and validity of the sale agreement. 12. Materials placed on record go to show that the efforts had been taken by the defendant herself to subject her signature to the expert's scrutiny and in this connection, she has also preferred an application and though the said application had been entertained, however, the expert having called for the contemporaneous documents and as the same could not be forwarded to the expert one way or the other, it is found that the abovesaid application preferred for obtaining the expert's opinion ended in vain. In the light of the abovesaid developments, in addition to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 supporting the plaintiff's version, the Trial Court had also endeavoured to compare the signatures of the defendant in the sale agreement with her admitted signature and thereby, had come to the conclusion that on account of the similarities of the defendant's signature in the sale agreement and the admitted signature to be of higher degree than the dissimilarities, accordingly, also accepted the plaintiff's case on that score. 13. In the light of the abovesaid factors, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in toto as well as the other materials projected, in all, it is found that the Courts below are justified in upholding the truth and validity of the sale agreement marked as Ex.A1 and accordingly, rightly rejected the defence version that the sale agreement – Ex.A1 had been created and fabricated by the plaintiff for the purpose of the case. The findings of the Courts below as regards the truth and validity of Ex.A1 – sale agreement do not warrant interference and the same is confirmed. 14. The findings of the Courts below as regards the truth and validity of Ex.A1 – sale agreement do not warrant interference and the same is confirmed. 14. As regards the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, a serious dispute has been raised by the defendant in the written statement alternatively and contended that the plaintiff has not endeavoured to perform his part of the contract readily and willingly from the inception of the sale agreement and on the other hand, had issued the legal notice very belatedly only on 06.07.2007 and not only that, thereafter, laid the suit only on 22.12.2009, despite the repudiation of his case by the defendant in the reply notice, thereby contended that the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff being the essential sine qua non for obtaining the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance, the Courts below, without appreciating the above aspect of the matter and without appreciating the materials in a proper manner, had erred in accepting the plaintiff's case and on that score alone, the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are liable to be dismissed. Even the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are only revolving on the defence taken by the defendant as regards the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract as enunciated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 15. As per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is found that the specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person, who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Furthermore, as per the explanation appended to Clause-(c), it is seen that where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court and the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction. 16. 16. Now, as above discussed, it is seen that the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into the sale agreement, on 18.06.2006, in respect of the suit property, which document had come to be marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of the terms of Ex.A1, it is found that the parties had agreed the sale consideration at Rs.1,89,750/-. Furthermore, it is also seen that on the date of the sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid a sum Rs.1,50,000/- as advance to the defendant out of the total sale consideration and therefore, the balance sale consideration remains only at Rs.39,750/-. From the terms of the sale agreement, it is found that the parties had agreed to complete the sale transaction within 1 ½ years from the date of the sale agreement i.e. on or before 18.12.2007, whereby, it is found that the plaintiff is bound to pay the balance sale consideration on or before the fixed time limit and the defendant, on receipt of the same, is bound to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed in his favour. Therefore, when from the terms of Ex.A1, it is evident that the parties are conscious that the sale transaction should be completed within a particular time limit, in all, it is seen that the parties are aware of the time being the essence of the contract and in such view of the matter, in the abovesaid background, we have to see whether the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as recited in Ex.A1. 17. Ex.A1 is dated 18.06.2006. The outer time limit is fixed on 18.12.2007. As regards the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, it is found that he must be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the inception of the execution of the sale agreement till the date of the execution of the sale deed by the defendant. As regards the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, it is found that he must be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the inception of the execution of the sale agreement till the date of the execution of the sale deed by the defendant. Even as per the averments contained in the plaint, it is found that the plaintiff has come forward with the case as if he had tendered the balance sale consideration to the defendant on 01.07.2007 and the defendant refused to receive the same and evaded the execution of the sale deed on some pretext or the other and therefore, left with no other alternative, he has chosen to issue the legal notice on 06.07.2007 to the defendant. Therefore, as averred in the plaint, it is found that after the execution of the sale agreement on 18.06.2006, only on 01.07.2007, for the first time, according to the plaint averments, the plaintiff has approached the defendant for paying the balance sale consideration as per the terms of the contract. As to what effort had been taken by the plaintiff from 19.06.2006 till 30.06.2007 in paying the balance sale consideration to the defendant, nothing has been whispered in the plaint. Furthermore, even the case of the plaintiff that he has come forward to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant on 01.07.2007 has been challenged by the defendant. Even as regards the same, other than the ipse dixit testimony of the plaintiff, there is no material to hold that the plaintiff had approached the defendant on 01.07.2007 for paying the balance sale consideration and that it is only the defendant, who had evaded to receive the same on some pretext or the other. If the abovesaid case of the plaintiff has any element of truth, the case projected by the plaintiff in the plaint that he had approached the defendant on 01.07.2007 for paying the balance sale consideration would have been disclosed in the notice sent by him to the defendant on 06.07.2007. The legal notice, dated 06.07.2007, has been marked as Ex.A2. On a perusal of Ex.A2, it is found that there is no whisper therein as to the approach of the plaintiff on 01.07.2007 for paying the balance sale consideration to the defendant and the said fact conspicuously absent in the said notice. The legal notice, dated 06.07.2007, has been marked as Ex.A2. On a perusal of Ex.A2, it is found that there is no whisper therein as to the approach of the plaintiff on 01.07.2007 for paying the balance sale consideration to the defendant and the said fact conspicuously absent in the said notice. The same would only go to expose the falsity of the plaintiff's case as projected in the plaint that he had approached the defendant on 01.07.2007 for paying the balance sale consideration. In any event, as above pointed out, to show his readiness and willingness, the plaintiff must be eager to complete the transaction from the inception and accordingly, when his case is found to be not true and also not established, resultantly, it is found that from 18.06.2006, the date of sale agreement, till the issuance of the notice on 06.07.2007, there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiff that he had approached the defendant for paying the balance sale consideration and obtaining the sale deed from her in respect of the suit property. This aspect of the plaintiff's case has not been properly explained and established by the plaintiff in a convincing manner. Thus, it is noted that right from 19.06.2006 till 05.07.2007, the plaintiff has failed to establish his readiness and willingness in performing his part of the contract i.e., the payment of the remaining sale consideration to the defendant during the abovesaid period of time and in such view of the matter, the case projected by the plaintiff that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the inception falls to the ground and could not be accepted in any manner. 18. The defendant responded to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff by issuing a reply notice marked as Ex.A4, dated 31.07.2007. 18. The defendant responded to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff by issuing a reply notice marked as Ex.A4, dated 31.07.2007. On a perusal of the reply notice, dated 31.07.2007 marked as Ex.A4, it is found that the defendant has disputed the truth and validity of the sale agreement in all aspects and contended that the sale agreement is a fabricated document and also disputed the alleged cause of the plaintiff that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also disputed the handing over of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff pursuant to the sale agreement and also putforth the case that the plaintiff had created the sale agreement with a view to grab her property one way or the other and thus viewed, the plaintiff has been put on notice very clearly by the defendant that she is in toto challenging his case and thus, when the plaintiff is made aware that the defendant would not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in his favour pursuant to the sale agreement, as a prudent person, the immediate course that would have been adopted by the plaintiff is to institute a suit against the defendant immediately for enforcing the sale agreement. On the other hand, despite the stout denial of the plaintiff's case by the defendant, by way of Ex.A4 – reply notice, dated 31.07.2007, even thereafter, it is found that the plaintiff has not shown any readiness and willingness to approach the Court for instituting the suit and on the other hand, he has taken own time in instituting the suit and it could be seen that the plaintiff has instituted the suit only on 22.12.2009. Thus, it is found that there is absolutely no reason or material placed on the part of the plaintiff as to why he had not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by approaching the Court concerned for enforcing the sale agreement immediately from the date of receipt of the reply notice, dated 31.07.2007. Thus, it is found that nearly two years four months after the issuance of the reply notice, the plaintiff is found to have levied the suit for enforcing the sale agreement. Thus, it is found that nearly two years four months after the issuance of the reply notice, the plaintiff is found to have levied the suit for enforcing the sale agreement. As rightly putforth by the plaintiff's counsel, the long delay in the institution of the suit by the plaintiff, even after the issuance of the reply notice by the defendant would go to show that he has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and accordingly, not shown the inclination to enforce the sale agreement one way or the other and he having taken his own time to perform his part of the contract, in toto, it is seen that right from the date of the sale agreement i.e. 18.06.2006 till 05.07.2007 and from 31.07.2007 to 21.12.2009, there is absolutely no material or proof placed on the part of the plaintiff evidencing his readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract entered into between the parties and in such view of the matter, the failure on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract would be fatal to his case and by way of the same, it is seen that the plaintiff being the non-performer in the light of the provisions contained in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, would be dis-entitled to obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance as prayed for. The relief of specific performance being a discretionary relief need not be granted by the Court merely because the plaintiff has established the truth and validity of the sale agreement, on the other hand, the plaintiff should establish that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, which are required to be performed by him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the above discussions, when for the abovesaid period as pointed out, the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the period not being small, on the other hand, the period being enormous and in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to have not appreciated the plaintiff's case on the aspect of the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract as per the terms entered into between the parties by way of Ex.A1 and in such view of the matter, the same would run fatal to the plaintiff's case in seeking the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance and in such view of the matter, the Courts below, without adverting to the abovesaid aspects of the matter, had erred in exercising the grant of discretionary relief in favour of the plaintiff, who is dis-entitled to obtain the same as above discussed and accordingly, the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below in granting the relief of specific performance of the contract in favour of the plaintiff are liable to be set aside. 19. With reference to the abovesaid contentions as well as his other contentions as regards the truth and validity of the sale agreement, endeavour of the Courts below in comparing the signatures of the defendant suo motu, the counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the decisions in Indravathi vs. Kamala, reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 278 ; E.A.Thirugnanam vs. V.P.Rajagopal, reported in 2006 (1) CTC 809 ; Thiruvengada Pillai vs. Navaneethammal and another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1541 ; Janaki and Others vs. S.Desigan and another, reported in (2009) 8 MLJ 1451 ; 2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 637; Saradamani Kandappan vs. S.Rajalakshmi and others, reported in 2011 (4) CTC 640; RM Nachiammai vs. R.Savithri, reported in 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 88; M.Kaliamoorthy vs. Dhanuskodi, reported in (2014) 8 MLJ 597 ; Farooque Dadabhoy vs. Dr.Usha S.Bhat, reported in 2014 (4) CTC 290 and Kadali Venu Sankar vs. Pydikondala Lakshmi, reported in 2016 (4) CTC 470 . The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 20. The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 20. In the light of the above discussions, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 21. In conclusion, the Judgment and Decree, dated 01.10.2013, passed in A.S.No.17 of 2013, on the file of IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.12.2012, passed in O.S.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram, are set aside and consequently, the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2010 laid by the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed with costs.