SINGLE BENCH ( Before : S.M.Subramaniam, J. ) S.LATHA — Appellant Vs. A.L.SARAVANAN — Respondent A.S. No. 404 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 10655 of 2018 Decided on : 17-02-2020 Cases Referred

GOOD DAY
2021(1) CivCC 329
MADRAS HIGH COURT
SINGLE BENCH
( Before : S.M.Subramaniam, J. )
S.LATHA — Appellant
Vs.
A.L.SARAVANAN — Respondent
A.S. No. 404 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 10655 of 2018
Decided on : 17-02-2020
Cases Referred
 Surinder Kaur vs. Bahadur Singh, 2019 (8) SCC 575
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr.G.Ramadurai, for the Appellant; Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, for the Respondent
ORDER
1. The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/08/2017 passed
in O.S.No.546/2017 on the file of the Vth Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The defendant is the appellant and the respondent is the plaintiff, who instituted a
suit for specific performance.
3. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the plaint are that the suit schedule property
absolutely belongs to the defendant by virtue of sale deed dated 18.01.2002. The
defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit property and the plaintiff
agreed to purchase the same and entered into a sale agreement on 07.10.2009 for a total
sale consideration of Rs.13 lakh. On the date of sale agreement, the plaintiff has paid an
advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and further agreed to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- within a period of one year from the date of sale
agreement. The plaintiff states that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale
consideration and approached the defendant to perform her part of the contract. The
defendant was evading the execution of the sale by receiving the balance sale
consideration which resulted issuance of notice by the plaintiff and institution a suit for
specific performance.
4. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the contention and denying the
allegations. The defendant has stated that her husband was taking a medical treatment
and on account of urgency, she approached the plaintiff, who is a financier. As per his
suggestion, for the purpose of security, the defendant executed the sale agreement in
favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has contended that at no point of time, there was
an intention to sell the suit mentioned property and she borrowed the loan amount for
the purpose of meeting out the medical expenses, in view of the fact that her husband
was suffering from some heart disease. The suit sale agreement was executed by way of
security and the defendant has further stated that she had repaid a portion of the loan
amount on different occasion. The defendant has repaid the loan amount through bank
and through employee working with the plaintiff. To establish the same, she had filed
the bank statement as well as notebook maintained, in view of the fact that the
defendant had not intended to sell the suit mentioned property and the suit sale
agreement was executed in lieu of the loan, as security, therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled for the relief of specific performance.
5.The Trial Court framed the issues as to whether the suit sale agreement had been
executed only as a security for the loan transaction as alleged by the defendant. whether
the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as
prayed. whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed.
to what relief is the plaintiff entitled to. whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed?.