1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 15.11.2017

Delivered on : 30.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

Appeal Suit No.319 of 2017

and
C.M.P.No.12195 of 2017

1.Krishnaveni
2.Thulasimani
3.Rajamani
4.M.Mohan ... Appellants

vs.

1.Muthumanickam
2.V.K.Nagarajan
3.P.Muthupalaniappan
4.K.V.Jayaraman .. Respondents

R4 impleaded vide order of

Court dated 20.09.2017
made in CMP No.14560
of 2017 in A.S.No.319 of 2017

Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the

judgment and decree dated 10.02.2015, passed by the I Additional

District Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellants :Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan

For Respondent : Mr.S.Parthasarathy,Sr.counsel

for Mr.C.Veeraraghavan for
R1 to R3
http://www.judis.nic.in
Mr.V.Chandraprabu for R4
 2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM,J.)

This Appeal Suit has been directed against the judgment

and decree dated 10.2.2015, passed in O.S.No.842 of 2008, by the

First Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

2.The respondents 1 to 3 herein, as plaintiffs, have

instituted Original Suit No.842 of 2008, on the file of the trial

Court, praying to pass a decree of specific performance in

pursuance of the suit sale agreement dated 02.07.2008.

3.The material averments made in the plaint are that the

suit property is the absolute property of the defendants 1 to 3 and

they derived title to the same by virtue of Settlement Deed dated

18.3.2003. The defendants 1 to 3 have agreed to sell the same in

favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of Rs.1,22,000/- per cent. The

plaintiffs have paid an advance amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Further it is

agreed that within a period of four months, the defendants 1 to 3

have to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of

contract. On several occasions, the plaintiffs have approached the

http://www.judis.nic.in
 3

defendants 1 to 3 for getting a registered sale deed. On

31.10.2008, the plaintiffs have issued a telegram to the defendants

1 to 3 whereby directed them to execute a registered sale deed.

The defendants 1 to 3 have given a false reply notice and also

created a sale deed in favour of the 4th defendant. Under the said

circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief

sought therein.

4.In the written statement filed on the side of the

defendants 1 to 3, it is averred that the defendants have never

agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and no

agreement of sale has come into existence. The defendants have

not received the alleged advance amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the

plaintiffs. The husband of the first defendant, by name, Velusamy,

has fallen in illness. For the purpose of medical expenses, Rs.1 lakh

is required. Under the said circumstances, the first defendant has

approached one Palanisamy and he has given assurance to get loan.

Under the said circumstances, the first defendant has met the first

plaintiff. The first plaintiff has directed the first defendant to get

signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 and also their husbands on

blank stamp papers and accordingly, signatures have been obtained

from the defendants 1 to 3 and also from their husbands. The first

plaintiff has advanced a loan of Rs.1 lakh. In the telegram dated

http://www.judis.nic.in
 4

31.10.2008, no particulars are found place as to for whom such a

telegram has been given. But the defendants 1 to 3 have given a

proper reply notice. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 have utilised blank stamp

papers, where the signatures of the defendants 1 to 3 are found

place and falsely created the suit sale agreement. The defendants 1

to 3 have sold the suit property in favour of the 4 th defendant by

virtue of a sale deed dated 18.09.2008. There is no merit in the

suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5.The material averments made in the written statement

filed by the 4th defendant are that the suit property is the absolute

property of the defendants 1 to 3 by virtue of Settlement Deed

dated 18.3.2003. On 19.02.2008, the defendants 1 to 3 have

executed a sale agreement in favour of the 4th defendant and an

advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been given. The 4 th defendant

has subsequently purchased the suit property. The fourth

defendant has not known the alleged sale agreement. From the

date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit

property and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to

be dismissed.

6.On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side,

the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both
http://www.judis.nic.in
 5

oral and documentary evidence, has decreed the suit as prayed for.

Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the

present appeal suit has been preferred, at the instance of the

defendants 1 to 4.

7.The consistent case of the plaintiffs is that the suit

property is the absolute property of the defendants 1 to 3 and they

agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently,

the suit sale agreement has come into existence on 02.07.2008 and

the price of one cent has been fixed at Rs.1,22,000/-. Further, the

plaintiffs have paid Rs.6 lakhs by way of an advance. Further it is

agreed that the defendants 1 to 3 have to execute a registered sale

deed in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of four months.

Despite of repeated requests made by the plaintiffs, the defendants

1 to 3 have failed to execute a registered sale deed in their favour

and due to that, a telegram has been issued to the defendants 1 to

3 and after receipt of the same, they have given a false reply notice

and therefore, the present suit has been instituted for getting the

relief sought therein.

8.The defence put forth on the side of the defendants 1 to

3 is that the defendants 1 to 3 have not executed the suit sale

agreement dated 02.07.2008. The first defendant has approached

http://www.judis.nic.in
 6

the first plaintiff through one Palanisamy for getting a loan of Rs.1

lakh and at the time of advancing the same, the first plaintiff has

obtained their signatures and also signatures of their husbands on

blank stamp papers and by utilising the same, the suit sale

agreement has been falsely created and further, in pursuance of

sale agreement dated 19.2.2008, the defendants 1 to 3 have sold

the suit property in favour of the 4th defendant, by virtue of a sale

deed dated 18.09.2008 and since then, the fourth defendant is in

possession and enjoyment of the same and therefore, the plaintiffs

are not entitled to get the relief of specific performance.

9.The defence put forth on the side of the fourth defendant

is that the defendants 1 to 3 have executed a sale agreement dated

19.2.2008 in respect of the suit property and in pursuance of the

same, he purchased the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated

18.09.2008 and he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice

of the alleged sale agreement dated 02.07.2008 and therefore, the

present suit deserves to be dismissed.

10.In the trial court, after adducing both oral and

documentary evidence, on the side of the defendants the counsel

appeared for them has reported no instructions. Considering the

fact that both sides have adduced necessary oral and documentary
http://www.judis.nic.in
 7

evidence, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment purely

on merits.

11.Before pondering the rival submissions made on either

side, the Court has to look into Sections 16(c) and 19(b) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963.

12.Section 16(c) of the said Act reads as follows:

“16.Personal bars to relief- . . . . .

(a) . . . .

(b) . . . .

(c)who fails to aver and prove that

he has performed or has always been ready

and willing to perform the essential terms of

the contract, which are to be performed by

him, other than terms the performance of

which has been prevented or waived by the

defendant.”

It is an admitted fact that Section 16 of the Act deals with personal

bars for getting equitable relief of specific performance.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 8

13.From a cursory look of the provision of Section 16(c) of

the said Act would reveal that the plaintiff has to aver and prove his

readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, even

though, the defendant has not taken a plea to the effect that the

plaintiff has failed to prove his part of the contract. To put it in

short, as per Section 16(c) of the said Act, a statutory duty casts

upon the plaintiff to aver and prove that he has always been ready

and willing to perform his part of the contract.

14.Section 19(b) of the said Act reads as follows:

“19.Relief against parties and persons

claiming under them by subsequent title - . . . .

(a) . . . . .

(b)any other person claiming under him

by a title arising subsequently to the contract,

except transferee for value who has paid his

money in good faith and without notice of the

original contract. “

It is an admitted fact that Section 19 of the said Act deals with the

relief of specific performance against parties and persons claiming

under them by subsequent title.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 9

15.Section 19(b) of the said Act can be vivisected as

follows:

(a) The subsequent purchaser of the

property in question after a valid contract, is also

bound to execute a sale deed along with the

vendor.

(b)The subsequent purchaser, who

purchased the property in question for valuable

consideration and also paid his money in good

faith, without notice of original contract, is not

bound to execute a sale deed in pursuance of

prior sale agreement.

16.With these legal backgrounds, the Court has to

meticulously analyse the rival submissions made on either side.

17.The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/defendants has repeatedly argued to the effect that the

suit property is the absolute property of the defendants 1 to 3 and

they never created any sale agreement at any point of time in

favour of the plaintiffs much less on 02.07.2008. The husband of

the first defendant has fallen in illness and a sum of Rs.1 lakh is

required towards his medical expenses. Under the said

http://www.judis.nic.in
 10

circumstances, the first defendant has approached one Palanisamy

and he introduced the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff has given

assurance to advance money to the first defendant and directed the

first defendant to get signatures of the defendants 2 and 3 and also

their husbands and accordingly, the defendants 1 to 3 and their

husbands have put their signatures on various blank stamp papers

and by utilising the same, the suit sale agreement has been falsely

created and further, in the telegram given by the plaintiffs,

necessary particulars are not found place. Despite of bereft of

necessary particulars, the defendants 1 to 3 have given suitable

reply notice and further, in pursuance of sale agreement dated

19.2.2008, the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property in

favour of the fourth defendant by virtue of a sale deed dated

18.09.2008 and since the plaintiffs have not filed the present suit to

cancel the sale deed dated 18.09.2008, which stands in the name of

the fourth defendant, equitable relief of specific performance cannot

be granted and the trial Court, without considering the correct legal

position, has erroneously decreed the suit and therefore, the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be

interfered with.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 11

18.The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/defendants has relied upon the following catena of cases:

(i)2017 SCC Online SC 938-B.Vijaya Bharathi vs.

P.Savitri and Others, wherein at paragraph No.18, it is observed

as follows:

“18.It must also be noted that

though aware of two conveyances of the same
property, the plaintiff did not ask for their
cancellation. This again, would stand in the
way of a decree of specific performance for
unless the sale made by Defendant No. 1 to
Defendant No.2, and thereafter by Defendant
No.2 to Defendant No.3 are set aside, no
decree for specific performance could possibly
follow. While Mr. Rao may be right in stating
that mere delay without more would not dis-
entitle his client to the relief of specific
performance, for the reasons stated above,
we find that this is not such a case. The High
Court was clearly right in finding that the bar
of Section 16(c) was squarely attracted on the
facts of the present case, and that therefore,
the fact that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 may not
be bona fide purchasers would not come in the
way of stating that such suit must be
dismissed at the threshold because of lack of
http://www.judis.nic.in
 12

readiness and willingness, which is a basic

condition for the grant of specific
performance.“

(ii)(2007)9 Supreme Court Cases 660-

M.M.S.Investments, Madurrai and Others vs. V.Veerrappan

and Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once

a conveyance has come into existence, plea of readiness and

willingness cannot be raised by subsequent purchaser.

(iii)(2015)8 Supreme Court Cases 695 –

Padmakumari and Others vs. Dasayyan and Others, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with a case of bona fide

purchaser for value without notice of prior agreement and ultimately

held that he is entitled to get protection as per Section 19(b) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(iv)2014-4-L.W.686-K.Rajendran vs. K.Chinnappa

Gounder and another, wherein, this Court has held that initial

burden lies upon the subsequent purchaser to prove that he is a

bona fide purchaser for value without notice of earlier sale

agreement. Then the burden shifts on the plaintiff.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 13

(v)2008(3) CTC 1-P.Retnaswamy vs. A.Raja and

another, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that

subsequent purchaser has to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser

for value in good faith without notice of prior agreement.

(vi)2007(1) CTC 449-Jayalakshmi Ammal and 8

others vs. Chinnasamy Gounder, wherein the Division Bench of

this Court has held that the subsequent purchaser is a bona fide

purchaser for value without notice of prior agreement and therefore,

the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount paid to the vendor and

the relief of specific performance cannot be granted.

(vii)(2006)6 Supreme Court Cases 402 –

R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah and Others vs. Hajee C.Abdul

Wahab, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with Section

19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and ultimately held that specific

performance of a contract can be enforced against a party thereto

and any other person claiming under him by a title arising

subsequent to the contract except transferee for value, who has

paid his money in good faith without notice of original contract.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 14

(viii)(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 685-Ram Niwas

(dead) Through Lrs. vs. Bano (smt) and Others, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Section 19(b) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963, the relief of specific performance cannot

be enforced against subsequent purchaser for value without notice.

(ix)(2003)10 Supreme Court Cases 390-Manjunath

Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hanasi vs. Tammanasa and Others,

wherein the Honn'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the provision of

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and ultimately held

that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his readiness and

willingness to perform his part of the contract.

(x)(2017)5 Supreme Court Cases 178 – Jayakantham

and Others vs. Abaykumar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has dealt with Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and

ultimately found that the relief of specific performance is nothing

but a discretionary relief and the same not be granted merely on

the basis of a lawful contract.

(xi)(1998)2 Supreme Court Cases 206 – Malkiat

Singh and Another vs. Joginder Singh and Others, wherein the
http://www.judis.nic.in
 15

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an ex-parte decree has been

passed, the proper course is to remand the matter to trial Court for

disposing of the case in accordance with law.

19.From a cumulative reading of the decisions accited on

the side of the appellants/defendants, the following legal points can

be deduced:

(1)In a suit for specific performance, as per Section 16(c)

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff has to plead and

independently prove his readiness and willingness to perform his

part of the contract even though a negative plea has not been

raised on the side of the defendant.

(2)As per Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a

bona fide purchaser for value, who paid money in good faith without

notice of prior sale agreement, is not bound to execute a sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff.

(3)If there is any sale deed subsequent to original

contract, the same has to be cancelled or set aside.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 16

(4)The subsequent purchaser cannot raise a plea to the

effect that the plaintiff has not shown his readiness and willingness

since a conveyance has come into existence.

(5)In case of an ex-parte decree, the proper remedy is to

file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure

1908.

20.To resile the contentions put forth on the side of the

appellants/defendants, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs has laconically contended to the effect

that on 02.07.2008, the defendants 1 to 3 have agreed to sell the

suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and to that effect the suit

sale agreement has come into existence, wherein, price of one cent

has been fixed at Rs.1,22,000/- and on the date of execution of suit

sale agreement, the plaintiffs have paid an advance amount of Rs.6

lakhs and further agreed that the defendants have to execute a

registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of four

months and despite of repeated demands made on the side of the

plaintiffs, the defendants 1 to 3 have failed to perform their part of

the contract and subsequently, telegrams have been issued on

31.10.2008 and even after receipt of the same, the defendants 1 to

http://www.judis.nic.in
 17

3 have not come forward to execute a registered sale deed in favour

of the plaintiffs. But the defendants 1 to 3 have falsely created sale

deed dated 18.09.2008 in favour of the fourth defendant. Since the

plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of the

contract and since the defendants 1 to 3 have failed to perform their

part of the contract, the present suit has been instituted and the

trial Court, after considering the overall evidence available on

record, has rightly decreed the suit and therefore, the judgement

and decree passed by the trial Court need not be interfered with.

21.Basing upon the divergent submissions made on either

side, the Court has to look into the following factual aspects:

(1)Whether the suit sale agreement dated 02.07.2008 has

actually been executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the

plaintiffs.

(2)Whether the 4th defendant is really a bona fide

purchaser for value without notice of the suit sale agreement, dated

02.07.2008.

22.The suit sale agreement has been marked as Ex.A1.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 18

23.The consistent case of the plaintiffs is that on

02.07.2008, Ex.A1 has come into existence betwixt the plaintiffs

and defendants 1 to 3 and on the date of its execution, the

defendants have received a sum of Rs.6 lakhs by way of an

advance.

24.The defence put forth on the side of the defendants 1

to 3 is that in the year 2008, the husband of the first defendant has

fallen in illness and a sum of Rs.1 lakhs is required towards his

medical treatment and therefore, the first defendant has

approached one Palanisamy and he introduced the first plaintiff.

The first plaintiff has advanced a sum of Rs.1 lakhs to the first

defendant and at the time of giving loan, he obtained signatures of

the defendants 1 to 3 and their husbands on various blank stamp

papers and by utilising the same, Ex.A1 has been created and there

is no contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants

1 to 3.

25.On the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff has

been examined as P.W.1. In fact, this Court has perused the entire

evidence adduced by the second plaintiff, wherein, he clinchingly

stated to the effect that Ex.A1 has come into existence between
http://www.judis.nic.in
 19

them and defendants 1 to 3. Further, on the side of the plaintiffs,

one Karuppusamy has been examined as P.W.2 and his specific

evidence is that the defendants 1 to 3 have executed Ex.A1 in

favour of the plaintiffs. Further he adduced evidence to the effect

that in Ex.A1, he put his signature as a witness. No suggestion has

been put to P.W.2 on the side of the defendants to the effect that

due to animosity he adduced evidence against them. Therefore, the

evidence of P.W.2 can be accepted in toto. On the basis of evidence

of P.W.2, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1, there is no incertitude

in coming to a conclusion that Ex.A1 is a genuine document and the

same has come into existence betwixt the plaintiffs and defendants

1 to 3.

26.Even though on the side of the defendants 1 to 3 a

specific contention has been put forth in respect of Ex.A1, no

acceptable evidence has been forthcoming. The specific case of the

defendants 1 to 3 is that one Palanisamy has introduced the first

plaintiff to the first defendant for getting a loan of Rs.1 lakh. Even

for the purpose of proving the said factual aspect, no attempt has

been made on the side of the defendants to examine the said

Palanisamy. Since there is no positive evidence on the side of the

defendants to dispel the evidence adduced on the side of the

plaintiffs, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
 20

defence taken on the side of the defendants 1 to 3 with regard to

Ex.A1 cannot be accepted.

27.The specific contention put forth on the side of the 4th

defendant is that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and paid

money in good faith without notice of Ex.A1.

28.The 4th defendant has been examined as D.W.3. In fact

he adduced evidence on the basis of averments made in the written

statement.

29.At this juncture, the Court has to meticulously analyse

the sale agreement dated 19.02.2008 and sale deed dated

18.09.2008. The sale agreement dated 19.02.2008, which stands

in the name of 4th defendant has been marked as Ex.B3 and the sale

deed dated 18.09.2008, which stands in his name has been marked

as Ex.B1. In Ex.B3, total sale consideration has been fixed at Rs.6

lakhs and an advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid, whereas,

in Ex.B1 total consideration is mentioned as Rs.2,26,000/-. Further

in Ex.B1 no mention has been made in respect of Ex.B3. If really

Ex.B3 has come into existence on 19.02.2008 between the

defendants 1 to 3 and 4th defendant and if really the 4th defendant

has advanced an amount of Rs.2 lakhs, definitely the same would

http://www.judis.nic.in
 21

be mentioned in Ex.B1 and further, the total sale consideration

mentioned in Ex.B3 is not reflected in Ex.B1. Therefore, it is

needless to say that both Ex.B3 and Ex.B1 have been falsely

created so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.

30.It is a settled principle of law that as per Section 19(b)

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a bona fide purchaser for value,

who paid money in good faith without notice of prior sale agreement

is not bound to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Under

the said circumstances, the 4th defendant has to necessarily prove

that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of Ex.A1.

31.As animadverted to earlier there is a vast difference

between sale consideration mentioned in Ex.B3 and Ex.B1 and

further, no mention has been made in Ex.B1 about the existence of

Ex.B3. Therefore, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that

the 4th defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value and he is

not entitled to get the protection available under Section 19(b) of

the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

32.The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/defendants has repeatedly contended to the effect that

the defendants 1 to 3 have sold the suit property in favour of the 4th
http://www.judis.nic.in
 22

defendant by virtue of Ex.B1 and under the said circumstances,

without cancelling or setting aside Ex.B1, the plaintiffs are not

entitled to get discretionary relief of specific performance.

33.As mentioned supra, in some of the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court it is held that sale deed, which stands in the

name of subsequent purchaser, should either be cancelled or set

aside.

34.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs has relied upon the decision reported in

2015(5) Supreme Court Cases 223-Rathnavathi and Another

vs. Kavita Ganashamdas, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

dealt with a case of identical facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has

relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 75-Durga

Prasad v. Deep Chand, wherein at paragraph No.42, it is

observed as follows:

“42.In our opinion, the proper form of

decree is to direct specific performance of the

contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and

direct the subsequent transferee to join in the

conveyance so as to pass on the title which

resides in him to the plaintiff. He does not join in

http://www.judis.nic.in
 23

any special covenants made between the plaintiff

and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title

to the plaintiff. This was the course followed by

the Calcutta High Court in Kafiladdin v.

Samiraddin (AIR 1931 Cal 67) and appears to be

the English practice.

35.A mere reading of the decision referred to supra it is

made clear that as per Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if

a subsequent purchaser is not a bona fide purchaser for value

without notice of prior sale agreement, he has to join along with the

vendor to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

36.In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the 4th

defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of

Ex.A1. Further it is held that Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 are created only for

the purpose of defeating the rights of the plaintiffs. Under the said

circumstances, the 4th defendant is also bound to join with the

defendants 1 to 3 for executing a registered sale deed in favour of

the plaintiffs.

37.It is an admitted fact that in Ex.B1, the plaintiffs are

not parties. Since the plaintiffs are not parties in Ex.B1, they are
http://www.judis.nic.in
 24

not bound to either cancel or set aside the same. Further, it is a

well settled principle of law that only a party to a document is bound

to cancel or set aside the same. Under the said circumstances, in

view of the decision reported in (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases

223 and also in view of the decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 75,

this Court is of the considered view that the argument advanced by

the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants in

respect of cancellation of Ex.B1 does not hold good and the same

can be ignored.

38.It has already been pointed out that after adducing

considerable/requisite evidence on the side of the defendants, at

the stage of argument, the counsel for the defendants has reported

'no instructions'.

39.The argument put forth on the side of the

appellants/defendants is that the trial Court has passed an ex-parte

decree and under the said circumstances, the proper remedy open

to the defendants is to file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and therefore, the present appeal suit

is liable to be remitted to the file of the trial Court.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 25

40.Even in the preamble of the judgement passed by the

trial Court, it has been clearly mentioned that on the side of the

defendants requisite (both oral and documentary evidence) have

been adduced and therefore, judgement is passed purely on merits.

Since on the side of the defendants, both oral and documentary

evidence have been adduced considerably so as to substantiate the

contentions put forth on their side, the Court cannot come to a

conclusion that the decree passed by the trial Court is an ex-parte

decree and under such circumstances, the contention put forth on

the side of the appellants/defendants with regard to nature of

decree passed by the trial Court is sans merit.

41.In several places it is pointed out that in a suit for

specific performance, as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,

1963, the plaintiff has to plead and independently prove his

readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract even

though a negative plea has not been raised on the side of the

defendants.

42.In the instant case, on the side of the plaintiffs replete

and unimpugnable evidence is available so as to prove their

readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. It is

http://www.judis.nic.in
 26

not an exaggeration to say that the entire defence taken on the side

of the defendants is nothing but false. Since on the side of the

plaintiffs, the statutory provision of Section 16(c) of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963 has been properly complied with and since the 4 th

defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of

Ex.A1, it is clear that the defendants 1 to 4 are bound to execute a

sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

43.The trial Court, after considering the rival evidence

available on record, has rightly decreed the suit. In view of the

discussion made earlier, on the basis of factual and legal aspects,

this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the judgement

and decree passed by the trial Court and therefore, the present

Appeal Suit deserves to be dismissed.

In fine, this Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. The

judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.842 of 2008, by the trial

Court are confirmed. Connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

(A.S.J.) (P.K.J.)
30.11.2017
msk

Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
 27

To

The I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 28

A.SELVAM,J.
and
P.KALAIYARASAN,J.
msk

Pre-delivery judgment in
Appeal Suit No.319 of 2017

30.11.2017

http://www.judis.nic.in