2011 (6) TMI 1008 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms lower courts, directs refund & adjustment of sale consideration.

K. Mani Versus M.D. Jayavel, Saroja, Ramani, Sambandam, Porkodi, Kasthuri, Balakumar, Parimal

The High Court dismissed both second appeals, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court found no substantial questions of law for interference, ... - Issues Involved:1. Specific performance of an agreement to sell.2. Eviction and recovery of possession.3. Readiness and willingness to perform the contract.4. Material alteration in the sale agreement.5. Validity of termination notice.6. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.7. Jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell:The appellant filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2005 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell, requesting the court to direct the defendants to execute and register the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, and this decision was upheld by the first appellate court. The courts found that the agreement to sell (Ex.B1) was materially altered and thus unenforceable.2. Eviction and Recovery of Possession:The respondents filed suit O.S.No.91 of 2007 for eviction and recovery of possession, claiming that the tenancy was terminated. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondents, which was affirmed by the first appellate court. The courts treated the appellant's possession as that of a tenant and not as an agreement holder under the sale agreement.3. Readiness and Willingness to Perform the Contract:The appellant's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract were questioned. The courts below held that the appellant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.4. Material Alteration in the Sale Agreement:The courts found that the sale agreement (Ex.B1) was materially altered without authorization. Corrections were made to the date and the period of performance, which were not attested. The courts concluded that these alterations were material and unauthorized, rendering the agreement unenforceable.5. Validity of Termination Notice:The validity of the termination notice (Ex.A7) was upheld. The courts found that the notice was valid and that the tenancy was effectively terminated, warranting the eviction of the appellant.6. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act:The appellant's reliance on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was rejected. The courts noted that the agreement to sell was not registered, as required by Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, which made Section 53A inapplicable.7. Jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act:The applicability of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was contested. The first appellate court found that the Act did not apply to the village Panchayat areas where the property was located. This finding was not challenged effectively, and thus, the jurisdiction of the civil court was upheld.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed both second appeals, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court held that there were no substantial questions of law warranting interference. The material alterations in the sale agreement and the valid termination of tenancy were key factors in the decision. The court also directed that the sale consideration deposited by the appellant be refunded and recorded an agreement to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent or damages.