Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated 29.02.2016 between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant for purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-, with an advance payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and pay the remaining Rs.1,00,000/-, but the defendant evaded execution of the sale deed despite repeated demands and two legal notices. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, or alternatively, for refund of the advance. The defendant, though served, did not appear and was set ex-parte before the trial court. The trial court, after examining two witnesses and six documents, held that the plaintiff was entitled only to the alternative relief of refund of the advance, denying specific performance solely because the plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale consideration before the court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the first appeal under Section 96 CPC. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that he had specifically pleaded readiness and willingness, that the defendant failed to reply to pre-suit notices or perform, and that the mere failure to deposit the balance in court did not negate his readiness, relying on R.Leela Ammal Vs. V.Gopal. The respondent argued that the trial court correctly applied Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing that the agreement required reciprocal performance including deposit of the balance, and that non-deposit justified denial of specific performance, relying on K.R.Sundararaj Vs. M.Nataraj. The High Court framed points for consideration, including the issue of readiness and willingness in light of the non-deposit. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - Readiness and Willingness - Non-deposit of balance consideration - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 16(c), 20 - In a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, the trial court denied relief because the plaintiff failed to deposit the remaining sale consideration before the court, despite pleading readiness and willingness. The appellant argued that mere non-deposit does not negate readiness, relying on R.Leela Ammal Vs. V.Gopal. The respondent contended that the agreement required reciprocal performance and deposit, citing K.R.Sundararaj Vs. M.Nataraj. The High Court considered whether non-deposit disentitled the plaintiff from specific performance and framed points for consideration. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement when he failed to deposit the remaining sale consideration before the trial court, despite having pleaded readiness and willingness.
Law Points
- specific relief
- readiness and willingness
- deposit of balance consideration
- reciprocal promises
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 8
Mr.Balaji Thirumoorthy, Mr.G.Muthukumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, alternatively for refund of advance amount.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought specific performance of the sale agreement dated 29.02.2016, or in the alternative, refund of the advance of Rs.10,00,000/-.
Filing Reason
Defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated demands and legal notices.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Principal District Court, Tirupur) in O.S.No.17 of 2017 by judgment dated 22.08.2017 denied specific performance and granted only alternative relief of refund of advance, holding that the plaintiff did not deposit the remaining sale consideration before the court.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement, particularly in light of the failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration before the trial court.
Whether the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform the contract is negated by non-deposit of the balance consideration.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/Plaintiff argued that he pleaded and proved readiness and willingness, that the defendant did not reply to pre-suit notices nor perform, and that mere non-deposit of balance consideration does not disentitle him from specific performance, relying on R.Leela Ammal Vs. V.Gopal.
Respondent/Defendant contended that the trial court correctly applied Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, that the agreement required reciprocal performance including deposit of the balance, and that the plaintiff’s failure to deposit the money before the court justified denial of specific performance, relying on K.R.Sundararaj Vs. M.Nataraj.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a registered Sale Agreement dated 29.02.2016, agreeing to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-, and on the date of the Sale Agreement, an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the defendant.
The Trial Court framed an issue, as to “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance or not”, and ultimately found that the plaintiff is entitled only for the alternative relief of refund of advance amount. The reason for such decree is the absence of deposit of the remaining sale consideration before the Trial Court.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.17 of 2017 in Principal District Court, Tirupur, for specific performance of sale agreement dated 29.02.2016 or alternatively refund of advance. Defendant set ex-parte. Trial Court by judgment dated 22.08.2017 granted only alternative relief of refund, denying specific performance. Plaintiff filed First Appeal under Section 96 CPC before High Court of Madras, A.S.No.682 of 2017. Appeal heard on 20.02.2025, judgment reserved and pronounced on 26.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 16(c), 20
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96
