Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of two sale agreements dated January 6, 2003, one registered and one unregistered, executed by original defendant R.Veeran in favour of Sivaraman. The plaintiff, M.Sathish Kumar, claimed that the agreements were assigned to him for Rs.17,00,000, and that the original defendant had received a total of Rs.17,00,000 as part consideration, evidenced by receipts dated February 5, 2003 and April 3, 2003. The original defendant admitted the agreements but denied the receipts, alleging fabrication using blank signed papers given earlier to the plaintiff's father for a discharged loan. The Trial Court framed issues on the genuineness of receipts, readiness and willingness, public policy, and the alternative relief of refund. After trial, the Trial Court found that the unregistered agreement was executed to evade stamp duty and was against public policy, and that the receipts were false and fabricated. It held that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness only under the unregistered agreement, which was invalid, and therefore dismissed specific performance. However, since the defendant admitted receiving Rs.2,00,000 as advance, the Trial Court decreed refund of that amount with 9% pendente lite interest and 6% post-decree interest. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the Trial Court misappreciated evidence and that the receipts were genuine. The matter was heard by the High Court but the provided text ends during the appellant's arguments and does not include the High Court's findings, decision, or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the sale agreements when one agreement was unregistered and allegedly against public policy, and whether the subsequent payment receipts were genuine.
Law Points
- specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- unregistered agreement
- public policy
- part performance
- assignment of agreement
- burden of proof
- refund of advance
- pendente lite interest
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 30
T.Murugamanickam, Zeenath Begum (for appellant); Respondents: served, no appearance
R. Veeran (Died) through LRs: 1.V.Ramasundaram, 2.V.Vijaya, 3.V.Ravi alias Sriram, 4.V.Sampath alias V.Palanisamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Original suit for specific performance of two sale agreements, alternatively for refund of advance.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought specific performance of the sale agreements directing the defendant to execute sale deed, or alternatively, refund of Rs.17,00,000 paid as advance.
Filing Reason
The original defendant failed to execute sale deed despite agreements and alleged receipt of part consideration.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (III Additional District Court, Salem) in O.S. No.163 of 2004, by judgment dated August 16, 2018, dismissed the specific performance relief and directed refund of Rs.2,00,000 with 9% pendente lite interest and 6% post-decree interest, holding that the unregistered agreement was against public policy and the payment receipts were fabricated.
Issues
Whether the defendant received Rs.17,00,000 as advance.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance.
Whether the sale agreement is hit by public policy.
Whether the receipts dated February 5, 2003 and April 3, 2003 are true and genuine.
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness.
Whether the sale agreements were executed as security for loan transactions.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of advance.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The Trial Court did not appreciate evidence properly; the defendants admitted execution of the agreements; the payment receipts were duly attested and proved through witness; the assignment was valid; the plaintiff was ready and willing.
Respondents: The agreements were fabricated as security for loans; the original defendant had signed blank papers; possession remained with defendants; the unregistered agreement was against public policy; the receipts were forged; the plaintiff not entitled to specific performance.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court held that Ex-A.2 - Sale Agreement (un-registered) was executed with a view to evade stamp duty and other revenues to the Government. Hence, Ex-A.2 is against public policy.
The original defendant received a total of Rs.17,00,000 towards part payment of the sale consideration but the Trial Court found the receipts fabricated.
The defendant himself agreed that he received Rs.2,00,000 under Ex-A.1 and Ex-A.2, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the same.
Procedural History
The suit O.S. No.163 of 2004 was filed before the III Additional District Court, Salem. The original defendant died on December 26, 2010, and his legal heirs were impleaded. The Trial Court framed issues and additional issues, conducted trial, and on August 16, 2018, passed a judgment and decree dismissing specific performance and ordering refund of Rs.2,00,000 with interest. The plaintiff filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The High Court heard arguments, but the judgment text does not contain the final decision.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1
