TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1084
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir family members. It was also represented that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property measuring a total extent of 2809 square feet or 6 cents and 193 square feet. The Defendant also expressed her intention to sell this property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,20,000/- to the Plaintiffs. After discussion, an agreement of sale dated 14.11.1994 came to be executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. On the date of execution of the said agreement, the Plaintiffs paid Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance and it was mutually agreed that upon payment of the balance sale consideration within six months, a sale deed can be executed in favour of the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, the Defendant sought for payment of Rs. 55,000/- and it was also paid by the Plaintiffs on 25.12.1994. According to the Plaintiffs, they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but it was the Defendant who sought further time on 14.05.1995 to deliver possession of the property and to register the sale deed. Accordingly, the period for performance of the contract was extended by one month till 14.06.1995. However, the Plaintiffs got the contract extended from 14.06.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non-compliance of the terms contained in the agreement dated 14.11.1994, the Plaintiffs have no right to seek for enforcement of the same. Even in the reply notice dated 10.01.1996, the Defendant has clearly stated that if the sale deed is not obtained on 12.01.1996 or 18.01.1996, the Plaintiffs will loose their right to seek for enforcement of the agreement dated 14.11.1994. Inspite of the same, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement and it is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.11.1994. 2.3. The Defendant also filed an additional written statement stating that the endorsement for extension of period from 14.05.1995 to 14.06.1995 was made since the tenants did not deliver possession. The Plaintiffs also insisted that they are not ready to purchase the property unless the tenants are vacated therefrom. However, now the Plaintiffs insist for the tenants to handover the vacant possession knowing fully well that it is an impossible task to evict the tenants within a given time. By seeking to handover vacant possession of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the second Plaintiff and her mother Janaki and the said suit has got nothing to do with the present claim for specific performance. As against the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 944 of 1995, A.S. No. 56 of 2002 was filed before this Court. As far as Criminal Case No. 864 of 2001 is concerned, the first Plaintiff is contesting the same legally. The various documents filed along with the plaint will amply prove the financial capacity of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant is unnecessarily referring to the claim of her brother Varadharaj with a view to deny the Plaintiffs their right to get the sale deed executed. The RCOP Nos. 22 and 225 of 1997 filed against the Tenants have been disposed of long ago and those tenants are no longer in occupation of the property in question. The Plaintiffs are having the required funds to honour their commitment and therefore, the Plaintiffs prayed for decreeing the suit as prayed for. 2.5. During trial in the suit, the first Plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1 and Ex. A-1 to Ex.A-145 were marked. On the other hand, the Defendant examined herself as D.W-1 and marked Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-23. The trial Court, on considering the notices exchanged amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Malluru Mallappa (dead) through legal representatives s Kuruvathappa and others (2020) 4 SCC 313. 9. Apart from the fact that no points for determination were framed, including on the issue of readiness and willingness, it is ex-facie apparent that the High Court has failed to consider the matter in its full perspective as it should have while dealing with the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. For the above reasons and without this Court expressing any view on the merits of the rival cases, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 22 June 2022 in AS No. 461 of 2007. A.S. No. 461 of 2007 is restored to the file of the High Court for being considered afresh. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 2.9. Pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Appeal is posted for hearing before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants, Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, submitted that the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale with the Defendant on 14.11.1994 for purchase of the property situated in Town S.No.9/26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dant that the Plaintiffs should pay the balance sale consideration at the time of completion of sale and the registration of deed of conveyance and also possession of the properties. The time agreed for completion and registration of sale deed was six months from the date of agreement of sale. VIII. The Plaintiffs further submit that as per the terms and conditions of sale agreement dated 14.11.1994 the Defendant must entrust the original title deeds, the above mentioned partition deed, property tax payment receipts, Urban Land Tax receipts income tax clearance certificate, encumbrance certificate along with legal opinion and other documents within one month to the Plaintiff. The Defendant also must deliver actual physical possession of properties on the date of registration of sale deed. A copy of the sale agreement was also handed over to Defendant on the date of agreement of sale. XV. The Plaintiffs humbly submit that the Defendant through her Counsel sent a reply notice dated 10.01.1996 in and by which she admitted the execution of agreement of sale and receipt of Rs. 2,05,000/- from the Plaintiff. She also admitted that the original title deeds, income tax cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was further represented that her mother settled the property in favour of the Defendant and her brother. Therefore, the Defendant undertook to execute the sale deed after getting permission from her brother to sell the property. It is in this context, repeatedly, time was extended for which the Defendant has made endorsements in the sale agreement deed. While so, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs have delayed the execution of the sale deed in any manner. In spite of repeated extension of time, the Defendant failed to abide the conditions set out in the sale agreement deed which forced the Plaintiffs to approach the Court by filing the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of the property. 7. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs invited the attention of this Court to para 3 to 7 of the written statement which reads as follows:- "3. There is no valid family arrangement as alleged in para 3 of the plaint. The properties are in possession and enjoyment of the two tenants and they are R.G.Rajan and Deivasigamani. This Defendant also in possession of portion of the suit property. In view of a portion of the property is in occupation of the tenants this De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deed. Under the correspondence and notice the Plaintiffs were made it definitely known that the agreement will be cancelled in case of nonperformance on a specified date. The Plaintiffs insisted the Defendant to perform several of the obligations which are impossible to be performed by any one. It is the Plaintiffs who have agreed to settle all disputes with the Defendant's brother chosen to insist this Defendant to obtain signature of her brother which is an impossible one. It is equally impossible to deliver actual possession of the suit properties since there are two tenants who refused to vacate the premises to the knowledge of Plaintiffs. The Defendant's brother was claiming equal share in the suit properties and the Plaintiffs are aware of the disputes. There is no encroachment in the suit properties and in any event the Plaintiffs cannot expect this Defendant to obtain the signature of the abetting owner to convey Plaintiffs title. The Plaintiffs are unable to arrange funds and chosen to lay several terms and conditions to register the sale with a view to pretend that they are ready for obtaining the sale deed. The Plaintiffs are not ready and willing to obtain the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Defendant, issues were framed as follows:- i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the contract of agreement for sale dated 14.11.1994? ii. Whether the suit property was not exclusive property of the Defendant? iii. Whether the agreement of sale dated 14.11.1994 is an unenforceable contract? iv. Whether the Plaintiff had not performed their part of the contract as per the sale agreement? v. Whether the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? vi. To what relief the parties to the suit are entitled? 9. During the pendency of the suit, additional issues were framed, which are as follows: i. Whether the Defendant had made fraudulent alterations in the sale agreement deed dated 14.11.1994? ii. Whether the Defendant had fraudulently altered the sketch annexed to the sale agreement deed? iii. Whether the Plaintiff does not have resources to execute the sale deed; whether the Plaintiff is indigent? iv. To what relief the Plaintiffs are entitled? 10. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants submitted that the Trial Judge had taken up Issue No.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Senior Counsel, the Plaintiffs were running a finance Company by name Sapthagiri Finance but due to unforeseen circumstances, the Plaintiffs were unable to pay back the depositors. Therefore, on the basis of the complaint of the depositors, he faced conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was awarded imprisonment for one year. However, it was contended that the criminal proceeding has no bearing for getting a decree for specific performance in this suit. 12. The contention of the Defendant is that the Plaintiffs wantonly insisted conditions in the sale agreement deed to be fulfilled, which are unenforceable and therefore, they have been blaming the Defendant for failure to execute the sale deed. However, the fact remains that it was the Plaintiffs have resources to get the sale deed executed by paying the entire balance sale consideration. However, the learned Trial Judge arrived at the conclusion under Issues Nos. 3 to 5 that the Plaintiffs does not have enough resources to pay the balance of entire sale consideration in one installment. If he had such resources, he should have voluntarily deposited the amount into Court. Before the trial, he h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Plaintiffs had notice that performance was refused by Defendants and Plaintiffs approached Court beyond three years of date of notice - Suit filed three years after agreement for sale or date for performance fixed in agreement for sale, not barred by limitation - It is not suit for possession as such - Applicability of Section 27, Limitation Act may not arise - Question to be decided on pleadings and evidence to be adduced by parties on aspect of second limb of Article 54 of Limitation Act - Limitation Act 1963 - Sections 3, 27, Art- 54 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20." 13.5. The decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Ramanujam and Jagadeesan vs. Rajamani and others reported in 2004 (2) M.L.J. 399 wherein it has been held as follows:- "The Principle that the equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted to a person who has put forward a false case is based on the doctrine that one who seeks equity must do equity" 13.6. In the decision of this Court reported in M.L.J. 1997 (iii) Page 576 it has been held as under:- "Readiness and willingness must be there continuously from the date of agreement upto the date of hearing it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court-II, Coimbatore, is perverse and is to be set aside. 15. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants further contended that only if the Court insist the Plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court, the Plaintiffs can make such deposit. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs invited the attention of this Court to the contents of sale agreement deed, Ex.A-1 and extension sought by the Defendant repeatedly under Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 to Ex.A-10, the exchange of notices between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. Ex.A-11 is the partition deed registered as Doc No.1245 of 1972 in which it is shown that the property was allotted to the mother of the Defendant. Ex.A-12 is the Will executed by the mother of the Defendant in her favour. Ex.A-13 is the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2075 of 1974 in favour of the Plaintiffs executed by one Rangasamy Naidu, S/o.Gundupilla Boni Naiyudu. By pointing out these documentary evidence, it was submitted that the Plaintiffs had blown hot and cold. On the one hand, she contends that she is the exclusive owner of the property on the basis of the Will under Ex.A-12 but on the other hand, she complains that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also submitted that at the time when the appeal was admitted, C.M.P was filed seeking stay in which the Defendant appeared through her Counsel. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant undertook in the Miscellaneous Petition that the Defendant will not alienate the property till the appeal is disposed of. However, in violation of such undertaking, the Defendant executed a sale deed in favour of a third party purchaser. The third party purchaser is now proceeding with construction in the said property. Therefore, the Plaintiffs reserves their right to initiate contempt against the Defendant. 19. Per contra, Mr. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Defendant/Respondent submitted that it is the case where the Plaintiffs were not at all willing to perform their part of the contract. They did not have resources to pay the balance of sale consideration. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent invited the attention of this Court to the exchange of notices between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant prior to institution of the suit. The Plaintiff had issued notice dated 09.01.1996, under Ex.A-7 as though Defendant failed to execute her part of the contract. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Defendant that her mother was allotted the property in a family partition and subsequently, she executed a Will in favour of the Defendant. If the Plaintiffs intend to verify the title to the property, they can do so at the earliest point of time. The agreement of sale was entered into on 14.11.1994. However, when the reply notice dated 10.01.1996 was issued by the Defendant calling upon them to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, they have sent the rejoinder informing that they are yet to get the opinion from the lawyer with respect to the title of the property. In any event, the Plaintiffs are residing just opposite to the suit property. They knew fully well about the occupation of the property by tenants. While so, after entering into the agreement on 14.11.1994, it is not proper for the Plaintiffs to call upon the Defendant to evict the tenants and handover the vacant possession of the property as a condition precedent to pay the balance sale consideration. The Plaintiffs were also aware that the Defendant has filed Rent Control Original Petitions against the tenants. Thus, the Plaintiffs want the Defendant to perform the impossible task with an intention to gain ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs, to show their bona fide ought to have voluntarily deposited the amount. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs that the Court had not insisted them to deposit the amount may not be proper. The Plaintiffs themselves can volunteer and file appropriate application as necessary to deposit the amount, in which event, the Court will not refuse it. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant placed reliance on the very same ruling relied on by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the judgment pronounced by Justice R. Subramanian in A.S. No. 863 of 2009 in M. Kaja Nijamudden Vs. A. Rajamani, wherein it is observed as follows:- "12. The next limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Plaintiff has not established that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The learned Counsel would submit that even according to the Bank statements produced by the Plaintiff he did not have the entire balance sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs in his Bank account during the relevant period. Therefore, the learned Counsel wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to appreciate that the Plaintiffs had resources to execute their part of contract? (ii) Whether the sale agreement had recitals that after execution of sale deed, the Plaintiffs on their own has to evict the tenant from the Suit property? (iii) Whether the trial Court erred in law in ignoring the settled position of law regarding grant of decree for specific performance of contract to the Plaintiffs? (iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance for sale of the property? (v) Whether the learned Judge had discussed the evidence properly and answered the issues? 25. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 passed in O.S. No. 139 of 2001 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Coimbatore and also the materials available on record. 26. On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, it is found that the learned Trial Judge, had not answered each of every issue framed by him. It is considered that the learned Trial Judge,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the litigation, the period had lapsed. In all cases, by virtue of the delay in adjudicating the case, a decree for specific performance may not be refused. But in this case, the decree for specific performance is not only refused on the ground of efflux of time, but the attitude of the Plaintiffs in not depositing the balance sale consideration atleast during the trial in the suit. The argument that the trial court did not insist the Plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration does not augur well and it only goes against the interest of the Plaintiffs to seek for equitable relief. 27. The documents under Ex.A-13 to Ex.A-145 were filed by the Plaintiffs to prove that they have sufficient means. On assessment of those documents, the learned Trial Judge concluded that in those Bank statements there was amount of one lakh and two lakhs etc. for a few days and those amounts were withdrawn subsequently. In other words, for the sake of proving the financial capability, the Plaintiffs deposited some amount and produce the document to the trial Court. This will not truly and adequately reflect the financial capability of the Plaintiffs. This is more so that the documents me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gay abandon with which the Plaintiffs approached the trial court with the suit for specific performance cannot be appreciated. Therefore, there is enough force in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant that there is no cause of action at all for institution of the suit. 28. Yet another aspect for consideration is that the Plaintiffs were heavily indebted. The Plaintiffs faced criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque and ultimately got convicted for having committed the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. That apart, there were also civil proceedings initiated against the Plaintiffs and a portion of the immovable property owned by them got attached. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs themselves admit that the brother of the Defendant has also got a right over the property in question. If it is so, a normal prudent purchaser would not venture to purchase the property. It is very much available on record that the Plaintiffs and Defendant are residing in the house located opposite to each other. Therefore, the Plaintiffs would have better knowledge about the right, title and interest of the Plain....