Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2602 (MAD)

P. S. Kannan Plaintiff v. S. Gnanajothi

2022-08-10

A.A.NAKKIRAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Suit has been filed, under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC, read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, for the reliefs as stated therein.) 1. This Civil Suit has been filed, seeking a judgement and decree, directing the Defendants to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property, by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,73,00,000/- and to hand over vacant possession of the suit property and for costs. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants 1 and 3 are the wife and daughter of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant is the owner of the suit property. The Plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement dated 5.4.2017, with the Defendants for purchase of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.2,13,00,000/-. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the sale shall be completed within three months and on completion of the registration of the sale deed, the Defendants shall hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff and Patta shall be obtained within three months. After obtaining patta, if the extent of the property is found to be less, the sale price would be proportionately reduced at Rs.8500/- sq.ft. An advance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid, by way of cash (Rs.20,00,000) and cheque no.000105 for Rs.20,00,000/-. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 21.06.2017, , informing them that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the said notice was returned as unserved. Thereafter, the Defendants informed that they were not in a position to get patta and pay other statutory levies and hence, requested to extend the time by another two months. Accordingly, an endorsement was made on 14.07.2017, in the sale agreement, extending the period upto 14.09.2017. Again, at the request of the Defendants, the period was further extended upto 27.10.2017, by making appropriate endorsement in the sale agreement. On 14.10.2009, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice, informing that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the said notice was received by them. However, there was no reply and they did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On 14.10.2009, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice, informing that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the said notice was received by them. However, there was no reply and they did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In spite of several requests, the Defendants evaded to perform their part of the contract. Hence, this Civil Suit has been filed, seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. 3. The case of the Defendants is that the sale agreement is sham and nominal. Orally, it was agreed to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per sq.ft. and for income tax purpose, it was mentioned in the sale agreement as Rs.8,500/- per sq.ft. The Defendants did not receive any notice dated 21.06.2017, which they came to know only in the suit proceedings. The period of time as stated by the Plaintiff was extended on mutual understanding, for obtaining patta and for mutation of revenue records. The Defendants were ready to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance sale consideration, but the Plaintiff insisted to receive the consideration mentioned in the sale agreement, that too not in full. Taking advantage of the sale deed, the Plaintiff is trying the grab the suit property for lesser amount. Therefore, they refused to execute the sale deed, because of the illegal demand of the Plaintiff. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties and the materials, the following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the agreement dated 5.4.2017 executed by the Defendants can be performed in a manner claimed by the Plaintiff? (2)Whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the agreement for sale on 5.4.2017, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement? (3)Whether the Defendants submitted any material documents to substantiate their claim for more than market value? (4)Whether the Defendants are entitled for more money than the amount stated in the sale agreement, when the execution of the sale agreement was not disputed, but the market value alone was disputed? (5)To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled? 5. On the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and PW.1 was examined. On the side of the Defendants, DW.1 was examined. 6. (5)To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled? 5. On the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and PW.1 was examined. On the side of the Defendants, DW.1 was examined. 6. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 7. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the 1st Defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and the Plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement dated 5.4.2017 with the Defendants for purchase of the same. One of the conditions is that the sale shall be completed within three months. The Plaintiff had paid Rs.40,00,000/- as advance. The stipulated time for completion of the sale expired on 4.7.2017. He had issued a legal notice on 21.6.2017 and the said notice was returned as unclaimed. Then the Defendants approached the Plaintiff and requested to extend the period of sale by another two months and the period was extended by another two months upto 14.9.2017. Then, on 14.9.2017, the Defendants requested for further extension of time for completion of the sale. The time was extended upto 27.10.2017. On 14.10.2017, he sent a legal notice and it was received by the Defendants, but they never showed any interest or inclination to execute the sale deed. The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement of sale. He deposited the balance sale consideration in the court deposit. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for decreeing the suit. 8. The learned counsel for the Defendants would submit that the Plaintiff has not shown his readiness and willingness to purchase the property. As per the mutual oral understanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the sale price was fixed as Rs.15,000/- per sq.ft. but only for the income tax purpose, the sale price was mentioned as Rs.8500/- per sq.ft. in the sale agreement. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to show his readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance sale consideration. But, the Plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the suit. 9. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. Issue Nos.3 and 4:- 10. But, the Plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness to purchase the suit property. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the suit. 9. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. Issue Nos.3 and 4:- 10. In this case, the Defendants admitted the execution of the sale agreement and disputed only the sale price amount mentioned in the sale agreement and also submitted that the Plaintiff has not shown his readiness and willingness to purchase the property. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals that the sale price was fixed at Rs.8,500/- per sq.ft. 11. In this case, DW.1 has deposed as follows:- Q4: In Ex.P1 agreement you have accepted to sell the property for Rs.8500/- per sq.ft. ? A: yes. Witness adds: Actually for Rs.15,000/- per sq.ft. rate was fixed but at that time the Plaintiff requested that in agreement we will write it as Rs.8500/- for the purpose of income tax. Q5: Is there any Memorandum of Understanding or agreement in written for the above said fact? A: No. So the contention of the Defendants that the sale price was fixed at Rs.15,000/- is not proved. 12. The Defendants have not filed any material documents to substantiate their claim for more than the market value and hence, they are not entitled to any more money than the amount stated in the sale agreement. Accordingly, issue nos.3 and 4 are answered against the defendants. Issue Nos.1 and 2:- 13. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 21.6.2017. In that notice, he clearly mentioned his readiness and willingness to purchase the property. Even in the notice dated 14.10.2017, he expressed his readiness and willingness to purchase the property. Furthermore, he deposed that he had money with him and not in the bank account. Hence, the statement of accounts is not filed. The Plaintiff had also deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,73,00,000/- in the court deposit. Thus, the Plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to purchase the property and hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the sale agreement. Accordingly, issue nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff. 14. Issue No.5:- The Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the sale agreement as prayed for and accordingly, issue no.5 is answered. 15. Accordingly, issue nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff. 14. Issue No.5:- The Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the sale agreement as prayed for and accordingly, issue no.5 is answered. 15. In fine, this Civil Suit is decreed as prayed for, with costs. The Defendants are directed to receive the balance sale consideration deposited in the court and execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the Court Officer shall execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff.