Madras High Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Plaintiff Proves Readiness and Willingness. Agreement to Sell Dated 24.05.2002 for Rs.5,50,000 with Rs.5,00,000 Advance — Defendants Failed to Execute Sale Deed Despite Notice.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 124
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 24.05.2002, wherein the defendants agreed to sell suit properties for Rs.5,50,000 and received Rs.5,00,000 as advance. The balance of Rs.50,000 was to be paid within six months. The plaintiff alleged that despite his readiness and willingness, the defendants evaded execution. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence, including the plaintiff's deposit of balance consideration and legal notice, and held that the plaintiff had proved his case. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's decree, and decreed the suit for specific performance with costs.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree - The court held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness by depositing the balance sale consideration and issuing legal notice, and the trial court erred in dismissing the suit (Paras 10-20).

B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against decree - Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if perverse or based on no evidence - The court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's conclusion was against the weight of evidence (Paras 5-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of trial court dated 29.06.2009 in O.S.No.128 of 2004 set aside. Suit decreed for specific performance with costs. Defendants directed to execute sale deed within two months on payment of balance consideration.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • readiness and willingness
  • burden of proof
  • Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  • 1963
  • Section 96 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 160

A.S(MD)No.2 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

2026-04-29

P.VADAMALAI

Mr.S.Vinayak for Appellant, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan for Respondents

S.R.Murugan @ Naveen S.R.Prabhu

P.Rajendran and P.Gopi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought decree directing defendants to execute sale deed and deliver possession.

Filing Reason

Defendants failed to execute sale deed despite receiving advance and plaintiff's readiness.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed the suit on 29.06.2009 in O.S.No.128 of 2004.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant/Plaintiff argued that he was always ready and willing, deposited balance consideration, and sent legal notice. Respondents/Defendants denied execution of agreement and receipt of advance.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved readiness and willingness by depositing balance consideration and issuing legal notice; the trial court's finding to the contrary was perverse and against the weight of evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants evaded execution of the sale deed despite receipt of advance.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed O.S.No.128 of 2004 in Fast Track Court, Dindigul, which was dismissed on 29.06.2009. Plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which allowed the appeal on 29.04.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Clarifies Referee Bench's Jurisdiction in Consumer Protection Act Reference. Referee Bench Cannot Decide Appeal Itself and Must Answer Referred Questions Before Returning Matter to Referring Bench Under Section 58(3), Consumer Protectio...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Railway Accident Case — Fall from Upper Berth Due to Jerk is Untoward Incident. Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 is a beneficial provision and must be liberally construed to include accidents inside train...