Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 17.06.1998 concerning agricultural land in Ernapuram Village, Salem District, with a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000 and an advance of Rs.1,25,000 paid. The defendant denied the agreement as forged and contended the property was undervalued. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendant then filed a second appeal before the High Court, and during execution proceedings, subsequent purchasers sought delivery of possession, leading to a civil revision petition. The High Court, by a common judgment, was to dispose of both matters together. However, the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 170
S.A. No.1043 of 2013 & C.R.P.No.1666 of 2019
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete
Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, Mr.S.Parthasarathy
K.Manivannan, R.Chelizhan, P.Subramani, P.T.Raja, A.P.Shanmugam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, with alternative refund and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.06.1998, alternatively refund of Rs.1,25,000 with interest, and permanent injunction against alienation.
Filing Reason
Defendant failed to execute sale deed despite receiving major portion of consideration, and attempted alienating the property.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed suit for specific performance on 20.04.2006 in O.S.No.166 of 2001. First appellate court confirmed on 28.11.2008 in A.S.No.52 of 2008.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance sought?
To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff was always ready and willing, issued legal notice, and waited at Sub Registrar's Office on the appointed date.
Defendant denied the agreement as forged and fabricated, claimed property worth more than consideration, and sought dismissal with costs.
Judgment Excerpts
the agreement of sale dated 17.06.1998 was forged and fabricated
the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff could deposit the balance with the court and obtain the sale deed and possession through legal process.
Procedural History
Suit O.S.No.166 of 2001 filed before Sub Judge, Sankari. Trial court decreed suit on 20.04.2006. First appeal A.S.No.52 of 2008 before Principal District Judge, Salem, confirmed decree on 28.11.2008. Defendant filed Second Appeal S.A.No.1043 of 2013 before High Court. Meanwhile, execution petition REP.No.58 of 2006 led to REA.No.151/2012 filed by subsequent purchasers. Sub Court, Sankari passed order on 11.12.2018 directing delivery. Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.1666 of 2019. Both SA and CRP taken up together by High Court, judgment reserved on 06.01.2026 and pronounced on 30.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Section 115, Order XLI Rule 27, Order XXXIX Rule 1, Order XXXIX Rule 2, Section 151
