- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.M Gopal Chetty v. Raman Alias Natesan And 7 Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 19-10-1973 for the sale of 4.16 acres of land in Naiyapakkam Village for Rs. 1,040/-. The plaintiff claimed possession from that date after paying Rs. 100 as advance and continued paying installments (kist). A second agreement was entered on 17-1-1974 as the sale was not completed under the earlier agreement. Subsequently, the third defendant obtained a sale deed for the same property from defendants 1 and 2 on 20-2-1974, which the plaintiff contended was invalid. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the plaintiff's case, while the third defendant contested, denying the validity of the agreements and asserting genuine ownership and possession. The trial Court granted the decree in favor of the plaintiff. After the deaths of some defendants, legal representatives were substituted, and the appeal was filed by the third defendant’s representatives. The lower appellate Court reversed the trial Court’s judgment, leading the plaintiff to file the Second Appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the agreements dated 19-10-1973 and 17-1-1974 (Exs. A.1 and A.2) are valid and enforceable contracts between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the alleged agreements.
- Whether the third defendant’s sale deed dated 20-2-1974 is valid and whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The lower appellate Court erred in holding that Exs. A.1 and A.2 are not valid documents.
- Defendants 1 and 2 did not deny the agreements by testifying, so the agreements must be presumed genuine.
- The third defendant cannot question the validity of these agreements.
Respondent's Arguments
- The lower appellate Court rightly concluded that Exs. A.1 and A.2 were not genuine agreements.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 | Defines that a proposal becomes a promise only when accepted by the person to whom it is made. | The court found that the plaintiff did not signify assent to the proposals in Exs. A.1 and A.2, hence no promise arose. |
| Section 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 | Defines an agreement as every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration of each other. | The court held that since there was no mutual promise, no agreement existed between the parties. |
| Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 | States that all agreements are contracts if made by free consent of competent parties. | The court observed there was no agreement by the plaintiff, so no contract was formed. |
| Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 | Only a party to a contract can enforce it through specific performance. | The court concluded that since the plaintiff was not a party to any valid contract, he was not entitled to specific performance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the two agreements (Exs. A.1 and A.2) and noted the absence of the plaintiff's signature, indicating lack of assent. The documents were signed only by defendants 1 and 2 and constituted unilateral undertakings rather than mutual agreements. Applying Section 2(b) and 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, the court found no promise or agreement from the plaintiff’s side, hence no contract was formed. Without a contract, specific performance under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act could not be granted to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the lower appellate Court's finding that the agreements were not genuine was supported by evidence including the plaintiff’s lack of possession of the property and the existence of a valid sale deed in favor of the third defendant. The plaintiff’s claim of possession and payment was found to be unsubstantiated and contradictory to the documentary evidence. The court agreed with the lower appellate Court’s thorough consideration of evidence and upheld its findings.
Holding and Implications
The Second Appeal is dismissed.
The court’s decision directly results in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance, affirming that no valid contract existed between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and that the third defendant’s sale deed is valid. No costs were awarded. The ruling does not establish any new precedent but confirms that specific performance requires a valid contract with mutual assent and that possession and genuineness of documents are critical factors in such disputes.
1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower appellate Court. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement said to have been executed on 19-10-1973 for the sale of 4.16 acres in Survey No. 275 in Naiyapakkam Village for Rs. 1,040/-. From the said date, he has been in possession after payment of a sum of Rs. 100/- as advance. He has been paying kist also. Again on 17-1-1974 another agreement was entered into, as the sale could not be completed as per the earlier agreement. After the second agreement, the third defendant using his influence has obtained the sale deed for the very same property from the defendants 1 and 2, on 20-2-1974. The sale deed is invalid. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of sale. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the case of the plaintiff. The third defendant alone contested the suit. According to him, the agreements dated 19-10-1973 and 17-1-1974 are not valid agreements. They are not true documents at all. The sale in his favour is genuine. From the date of sale, he is in possession of the suit property.
2. The trial Court has granted the decree as prayed for. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant was dead. Hence the second defendant was recorded as the legal representative. Similarly, D-3 also died and defendants 4 to 10 were added as his legal representatives. The appeal was preferred by the legal representatives of the third defendant. On a consideration of all the facts, the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the Second Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 are not valid documents when the defendants 1 and 2 have not denied the agreements by going into the box. Therefore the agreements must be presumed to be genuine one and the third defendant cannot question the same.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the lower appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the agreements Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 were not genuine.
5. Before we go into the question of genuineness and validity of Exs. A. 1 and A. 2, one vital fact which was not noticed by the lower Court is that Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 do not contain the signature of the plaintiff at all. Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 have been signed only by the defendants 1 and 2. The first one is on a blank paper. The preamble of the said document Ex. A-1 shows that the defendants 1 and 2 have given the said document to the plaintiff. It shows that the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of three months. There is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance of sale consideration within the period mentioned in the said document and take the sale deed. Similarly in Ex. A. 2 also we find that the defendants 1 and 2 have given the agreement to the plaintiff. In the said document also the defendants 1 and 2 have agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 17-1-1974 after receiving the balance of Rs. 790/-. Again in the said document also there is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance within the period. It is therefore clear from the terms that these two documents are only agreements by defendants 1 and 2 agreeing to do something in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the amounts. But there is no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to do anything in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. From the above it is clear that it is not an agreement between the two parties. It is not a mutual agreement or contract.
6. As per Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 a proposal becomes a promise only when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto and when the proposal is accepted. As per Section 2(e), every promise and every set of promises forming the consideration of each other is an agreement.
7. From the two documents we are not able to find anything signifying the assent of the plaintiff. Therefore there is no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. At the most they may be termed as undertakings by the defendants 1 and 2. As per Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements are contracts, if they are made by free consent of the parties competent to the contract. As we have seen above, there is no agreement at all in the present case by the plaintiff.
8. If there is no contract at all, then the question of specific performance does not arise. As per Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the contract can be enforced only by a party to a contract. The plaintiff is not a party at all to the contract. Therefore he is not entitled to obtain a decree from Court for specific performance. Hence the suit has to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. Next when we come to the merits of the case, the lower appellate Court has found that Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 were not genuine and they were brought up for the purpose of defeating the right of the third defendant. One of the reason for disbelieving the Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 is that according to the defendants 1 and 2 the plaintiff was not possessing sufficient funds to take the sale deed as per Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 before 17-1-1974. But as per Ex. B. 9, the plaintiff has taken a sale deed from the very same defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 3,000/- in respect of some other property. Another reason given by the lower appellate Court is that the definite case of the plaintiff is that he was given possession from the date of the first agreement i.e 17-1-1974.
10. Not only the lower appellate Court, but also the trial Court has found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property at all. Ex. A. 4 is the only document under which the plaintiff has paid kist on 17-3-1974, but the fact is that on 20-2-1974 itself the property was sold to the third defendant by defendants 1 and 2. Therefore it is clear that only after the sale has taken place the plaintiff has attempted to get the property for himself by paying the kist and taking the documents Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. This is also proved by Exs. B. 5 to B. 8 which are again kist receipts. They are subsequent to the filing of the suit and the sale in favour of the third defendant. Ex. B. 2 Adangal extract stands only in the name of the wife of the first defendant. It is not in the name of the plaintiff. So in my view, the case of the plaintiff that he was given possession on 17-1-1974 has been rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. As we have seen, even the trial Court which has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff has found that the plaintiff was not in possession.
11. In my view the lower appellate Court has considered the evidence properly and the finding given by the lower appellate Court is correct. Hence the second appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
12. Appeal dismissed.
Alert