The Madras High Court held that the plaintiffs forfeited specific performance by seeking the return of advance money due to inconsistent readiness during the agreement period until filing the lawsuit.
Case Title: Kamalam vs. M.A. Abdul Rahman and Others
Case No: A.S.No.211 of 2017
Decided on: 21st December, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 entered into a Sale Agreement for the purchase of a 1.58-acre plot of undeveloped land. The third defendant argued that the current Sale Agreement is legally affected by an earlier agreement and brought up the theory of lis pendens. The plaintiffs replied to the third defendant’s legal notification and angrily denied ever knowing about the previous agreement. In spite of the defendants’ evasive responses, the plaintiffs expressed their continuous willingness to carry out the agreement. The plaintiffs notified defendants 1 and 2 that they intended to perform when the allotted time drew near, but they received no response. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in response to the defendants’ lack of cooperation, requesting specific performance or a return of the advance payment. The plaintiffs refute the defendants’ acknowledgment of the Sale Agreement, arguing that the demand for particular performance was withdrawn under duress and does not abate their right to pursue it.
Defendants 1 and 2 contend in their lawsuit response that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the ongoing legal dispute with the third defendant and that no information was withheld. They claimed that in their notice, the plaintiffs abandoned their demand for specific performance in favour of requesting a reimbursement. The defendants claimed that this action prevented the plaintiffs from requesting particular performance and released them from having to reimburse the advance money because of an alleged violation on the part of the plaintiffs. Responses are given after the deaths of the father of the second defendant and the spouse of the first defendant. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are accused of wrongdoing with the property while it was in the status quo by the third defendant, who contended that the Sale Agreement is void ab-initio because of a High Court judgement. The third defendant also asserts deception and fraud, saying the Sale Agreement was a planned action that violated the court’s ruling.
Legal Provisions
The appeal suit before us is brought forth under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the plea to overturn the prevailing judgment.
Issues
Does the request for the reimbursement of the advance sum in the pre-litigation notice served by the plaintiffs constitute a renunciation of their entitlement to assert specific performance under the agreement?
Have respondents 1 to 4 and the plaintiff, V.M. Abdul Wahab, sufficiently demonstrated their unwavering readiness and willingness to fulfill their contractual obligations?
Courts analysis and decision
After the plaintiffs sent a notification on July 13, 2005, requesting the return of the advance money and payment of compensation, this Court concludes that the plaintiffs forfeited their right to seek the enforcement of specific performance of the contract. According to the Court, the plaintiffs did not consistently show that they were prepared and willing to carry out their contractual duties from the time of the agreement until the lawsuit was filed. As a result, there is no right to the alleviation of specific performance. Recognising defendants 1 and 2’s uncontested execution of the agreement and their receipt of the advance money, the Court ordered them to reimburse the total of Rs. 6,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% annually from the agreement date (08.04.2005) to the date of actual realization.
The court emphasised that the defendants’ suppression of the ongoing action and their disobedience of the status quo order justify this conclusion. The Court allowed the appeal suit by setting aside the Trial Court’s judgement and decree. Additionally, the appellants were ordered to pay the costs of both the appeal and the lawsuit that respondents 1 through 9 (plaintiffs) filed, given their actions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla