{"id":47179,"date":"2011-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-10T16:44:07","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T11:14:07","slug":"alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.(MD) No.43 of 2006\nand\nC.M.P.(MD) No.284 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009\n\nAlageswari\t\t\t ... Appellant\/Plaintiff\n\nVs.\n\n1.Athimuthu Manoharan\n2.Grace Vedamanicka Nadar\n3.Navaneethi\t\t\t ... Respondents\/Defendants\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the  Code of Civil Procedure,\nagainst the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge,\nThoothukudi dated 18.06.2003 in A.S.No.14 of 2002 confirming the judgment and\ndecree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi dated 26.09.2001 in\nO.S.No.319 of 1997.\n\n!For Appellant \t      ... Mr.\n\t\t          Senior Counsel for\n\t\t          Mr.S.Kadarkarai\n^For 1st Respondent   ... Mr.S.Sivathilakar\nFor Respondents 2 & 3 ... Mr.S.Subbiah\n* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Second Appeal is focussed by the original Plaintiff animadverting
\nupon the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003, passed in A.S.No.14 of 2002 by
\nthe learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi in confirming the judgment and
\ndecree dated 26.09.2001, passed in O.S.No.319 of 1997 by the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder
\naccording to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Second Appeal as stood
\nexposited from the records would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the suit
\nagreement to sell dated 20.12.1995, which emerged between D1, the Power Agent of
\nD2 and the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The 1st defendant filed written statement, supporting the case of the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The 2nd defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit on the
\nground that the agreement to sell is an anti-dated document, which emerged after
\nthe cancellation of the power deed executed by D2 in favour of D1.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The 3rd defendant, who purchased the second item of the suit
\nproperties, separately filed written statement supporting the contentions of D2.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Whereupon, relevant issues were framed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2
\nand  marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on her side. The defendants 1 and 2 examined
\nthemselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 along with D.W.3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.32 on
\ntheir side.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, as against which
\nthe appeal was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of
\nthe first appellate Court, the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal on various
\ngrounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law:
\n\t“(A) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to let in evidence against the
\nterms and conditions of registered power of attorney deed dated 18.05.1995?
\n\t(B) Whether the 2nd defendant has power to cancel the deed of power of
\nattorney especially when she has received the entire sale consideration under
\nEx. 12 which is not disputed?\n<\/p>\n
\t(C) Whether the finding of the lower court that the sale agreement is not
\nproved in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff is in possession?
\n\t(D) Whether the courts below right in holding that the suit property are
\nnot in existence when Annakannu Ariso Rani has not questioned the same?
\n\t(E) Whether D2 has right to sell the property under Ex.B.14 in view of
\nEx.B.12?\n<\/p>\n
\t(F) Whether the lower appellate court is correct dismissing the
\napplication to appoint commissioner to measured and note to physical features of
\nthe suit property?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  (Extracted as such)<\/p>\n
\t11. My learned Predecessor appointed an advocate Commissioner, during the
\npendency of this Second Appeal to visit the suit property, measure it and submit
\na report. Wherefore the Advocate Commissioner also submitted a report.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. I would like to fumigate my mind with the principles as found
\nenunciated and enshrined in the following decisions of the Honourable Apex
\nCourt:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal<\/a> reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court
\nCases 545.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and<\/a> another reported in 2008 (4) SCALE\n<\/p>\n
300.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) State Bank of India and others v. S.N.Goya<\/a> reported in 2009-1-L.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The aforesaid precedents would indicate and exemplify that unless any
\nsubstantial question of law is involved, the question of entertaining a Second
\nAppeal would not arise. Having that in mind, I heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant\/ plaintiff advanced his
\narguments, the pith and marrow of which would run thus:
\n\tBoth the Courts below failed to take into consideration the relevant
\ndocuments in the proper perspective in deciding the lis. Quite against the terms
\nand conditions of the power deed, D2 adduced evidence before the Court. D2 had
\nno power to cancel the power deed executed by D2 in favour of D1. Even though
\nthe plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the
\nCourts below held as though the agreement to sell was not proved to be a genuine
\none. The Courts below were not justified in holding that the first item of the
\nsuit properties is a non-existent one. Annakannu Athirshtarani, already
\npurchased property from D2 through D1 on the western side of the entire extent
\nof 12 cents of land. D2 had no right to sell under Ex.B.14, the eastern extreme
\nof the said 12 cents of land in view of Ex.B.12 the agreement having been
\nexecuted by D2 in favour of D1. The building bearing door Nos.2\/127A has been in
\nexistence long prior to the emergence of the power deed and the suit agreement
\nto sell. However, both the Courts below failed to take note of the said fact and
\nsimply went tangent in deciding against the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel for D1 would support the arguments of the learned
\nSenior Counsel for the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In a bid to shoot down and mince meat, torpedo and pulverise the
\narguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff and D1, the
\nlearned Counsel for D2 and D3 would advance his arguments, the long and short of
\nit would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) As against the concurrent findings of the fact that Ex.A.1 – the
\nagreement to sell is an anti-dated and cooked up document, no Second Appeal
\nwould lie and absolutely there is no perversity or illegality in such finding.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) Ex.A.1 is apparently found written on non-judicial stamp paper dated
\n20.12.1995, alleged to have been purchased from a stamp vendor in Srivilliputhur
\nbut actually the document is purported to have been executed at Thoothukudi,
\nwhich is 118 Kms. away from Srivilliputhur.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) In fact the unregistered sale deed – Ex.A.2, purported to have emerged
\non 08.08.1997 in favour of the plaintiff at the instance of D1 is also a cooked
\nup document, which came into existence only after the cancellation of the power
\ndeed – Ex.A.3 by D2 as per Ex.B.25 dated 03.10.1997. The scribe as well as the
\nattesting witnesses in A1 and A2, is one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) The Courts below adverted to all these documents appropriately and
\nappositely, properly and correctly and rendered a finding of fact that after
\ncancellation of Ex.A.3 – the power deed dated 18.05.1995, by D2 as per Ex.B.25
\ndated 03.10.1997, those documents, viz. Exs.A.1 and A.2 were concocted and
\nbrought about.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) D1 had not sought any relief based on Ex.B.12. D.W.2 (D2), explained
\nand expounded as to how D2 was brought about illegally by D1. According to her,
\nD1 misused the confidence reposed by D2 on D1 and got her signature while she
\nwas signing one other deed and in fact she did not receive Rs.38,500\/- from D1
\nas full and final settlement of the sale consideration in respect of the suit
\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f) The power deed Ex.A.3 does not contemplate the first item of the suit
\nproperties as found set out in Ex.A.1, the suit agreement.
\nAccordingly, the learned counsel would pray for the dismissal of the Second
\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The nutshell admitted and unassailable or at least the undeniable
\nfacts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the Second Appeal
\nwould run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tD2 claimed to be the original owner of 12 cents of land. But the
\nCommissioner’s Report would reveal that in stricto-sensu, she was owning only an
\nextent of 11.43 cents on ground. Admittedly, as per Ex.A.3, dated 18.05.1995,
\nthe power deed executed by D2 in favour of D1, the later executed a sale deed in
\nfavour of Annakkan Athirshtarani an extent of 3 cents of land on the western
\nextreme of the total extent of the said 12 cents. As such, there remained only 9
\ncents. D2 directly sold to D3 an extent of 6 cents to the east of the aforesaid
\n3 cents. Ex.A.3, the power deed bears the followed description of properties:
\n“jgrpy; tptuk;\n<\/p>\n
\tJ]j;Jf;Fo gjpt[ khtl;lk;, J]j;Jf;Fo BkY]h; rhh;gjpthsh; rufk;, J]hj;Jf;Fo
\njhYfh, Bfhuk;gs;sk; fpuhkk; gFjp 1 Bfhuk;gs;sk; Cuhl;rp kd;wk; 2tJ thh;L bjw;Fj;
\nbjUtpy; i&  fpuhkk; FoapUg;g[ ej;jk; rh;Bt 28 ek;ghpy; vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l
\nkidapy; Bkw;fila cs;s kid tPL tifawhf;fSf;F khyhtJ:\n<\/p>\n
fpHBky; bjUt[f;F\t\t\t\t      tlf;F\nehsJ Bjjpapy; ehd; etepjp mth;fSf;F fpiuak;\n\tbra;J bfhLf;Fk; kidf;Fk;\t       Bkw;F\n31\/4 ek;ghpy; cs;s kid tPL tifawhf;fSf;F\t\t\t\t\t\t\nfpHf;F\ngp.uh$ghz;o, gp.Btjkzp nth;fs; kid tPL\n\t\ttifawhf;fSf;F\t\t       bjw;F\n<\/pre>\n
\tne;j ehd;F khYf;Fs;gl;l kid brz;L 3f;F rJuo 1306.87 cs;s kida[k; i&
\nkidapy; fspkz; Rth; itj;J Bky; XL bghl;l gq;rhaj;J Bghh;L 2\/127 ek;gh; Vw;gl;l
\ntPLk;, kpd; nizg;g[k;, gps&t[l; ff;T!; cs;go nJt[k;,\n<\/p>\n
2.\ti& i& tptug;go i& rh;Bt ek;ghpy; fpHf;fila cs;s kidf;F khy;:\n<\/p>\n
fpHBky bjUt[f;Fk;\t\t\t\t      tlf;F\ngp.uh$ghz;o, gp.Btjkzp nth;fs; kidtPL\n\ttifawht[f;Fk;\t\t\t       bjw;F\nbjd;tly; re;Jf;Fk;\t\t\t       Bkw;F\nehsJ Bjjpapy; etepjp mth;fSf;F fpiuak;\n\tbra;J bfhLf;Fk; kidf;Fk;\t      fpHf;F\n<\/pre>\n
\tne;j ehd;F khYf;Fs;gl;l kid brz;L 3 mst[s;s kida[k; Mf bkhj;jk; mapl;lk;
\n2f;F brz;L 6 mst[s;s kida[k; jgrpy; tptuk; rhp. i& brhj;J jw;fhy rg;otp&d;go
\nrh;Bt 28\/5 ek;ghpy; cs;sJ.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Ex.B.12, the agreement dated 20.05.1995 emerged between D1 and D2;
\nwherein the recitals would demonstrate and display, exemplify and project that
\nD1 paid a sum of Rs.38,500\/- as full sale consideration for the properties found
\ndescribed in Ex.A.3 to D2, which fact D2 would dispute as though she only signed
\nEx.B.12 unknowingly and that she did not receive any amount much less the said
\nsum of Rs.38,500\/- from D1.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The contention of the plaintiff is that on 20.12.1995, D1 executed
\nEx.A.1 – the agreement to sell, in respect of the following items of properties:
\n“jgrpy;\n<\/p>\n
\tJ]j;Jf;Fo hpo, J]j;Jf;Fo BkY]h; rg;;hp rufk;, J]hj;Jf;Fo tl;lk;,
\nBfhuk;gs;sk; fpuhkk; gFjp-1 Bfhuk;gs;sk; Cuhl;rp kd;wk; 2tJ thh;L bjw;F bjUtpy;
\ni&  fpuhkk; FoapUg;g[ ej;jk; rh;Bt 28 ek;ghpy; brzL 12y; Rthd;jhuUf;F
\nghj;jpag;gl;l kidapy; Bky;g[uk; kj;jpapy; kid kid tPL tifawhf;fSf;F khy;:
\nmd;df;fd; mjph;&luhzpf;F ehd; fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;jpUf;Fk; kid tPL
\ntifawhf;fSf;Fk; fpHf;F, etepjp mth;fs; kid epyj;Jf;Fk; Bkw;F, fpHBkByhoa
\nBuhl;Lf;Fk; tlf;F, gp.uh$ghz;o, gp.Btjkzp nth;fs; kidtPL tifawhf;fSf;Fk; bjw;F,
\nne;j ehd;F khYf;Fs;g;gl;l kid epyk; fpHBky; tljiy ypA;!; 19 i& bjd;jiy ypA;!; 17
\nfpHBky; tlg[uk; brhe;jr;Rth; kuhkj;J Btiy bra;a bjd;tlypy; tlf;fila
\nBghlg;gl;Ls;s 3 ypA;!; mfy kid cl;gl Bky;jiy ypA;!; 66, i& fPH;jiy ypA;!; 66f;F
\nrJu ypA;!; 1,188f;F rJuo 517.492f;Fr; brz;L 1.188 mst[s;s kid epyKk; mjpy;
\nfl;oa[s;s fy;fhiuf;fl;L Xl;lLf;F Bghl;l gq;rhaj;J 2\/127V ek;gh; Vw;gl;l tPL 1k;
\nnJt[k;,\n<\/p>\n
2)\ti& i& i& fpuhkk;, FoapUg;g[ ej;jk;,  rh;Bt 28 ek;ghpy; brz;L 12y;
\nRthd;jhh;f;F ghj;jpag;gl;l kidapy; fpHf;fila kid epyj;Jf;F khy;: etepjp mth;f;s
\nkid epyj;jpw;Fk; fpHf;F, bjd;tly; re;Jf;Fk; Bkw;F, fpHBkByhoa Buhl;Lf;F tlf;F,
\ngp.Btjkzp mth;fs; kid tPL tifawhf;fSf;Fk; bjw;F, ne;j ehd;F khYf;Fs;g;gl;l kid
\nepyk; fpHBky; tljiy ypA;!; 27 i& bjd;jiy ypA;!; 30 tlg[uk; fpHBky; brhe;jr;Rth;
\nkuhkj;J Btiy bra;a bjd;tlypy; tlf;fila Bghlg;gl;Ls;s 3 ypA;!; mfy kid cl;gl
\nBky;jiy ypA;!; 67 i& fPH;jiy ypA;!; 67f;F rJu ypA;!; 1909.5f;F rJuo 831.778f;F
\nbrz;L 1.90 mst[s;s kid epyKk; mjpy; tlg[uk; fpHBky; brhe;j fhk;gt[z;l; RtUk;,
\nthifkuk; 1k;, ePuof; fHpg;gplk; 1k; cs;go jgrpy; tpguk; rhp.
\n\ti& brhj;J ehsJ cl;ghptpd;go rh;Bt 28\/5 ek;ghpy; cs;sJ. J]hj;Jf;Fo
\nK.kh.c.ePjpkd;w K.c.t.vz;.545\/91 Bfhh;l; fhgp b$uhf;!; i& Rthd;jhh; vdf;F vGjpf;
\nbfhLj;j 108\/1995 ek;gh; b$duy; gth; gj;jpuk; b$uhf;!; fhgpa[k; Rthd;jhh; fpBu!;
\nkhpak;khs; bgaUf;Fhpa gl;lht[k; ehd; jA;fsplk; je;Js;Bsd;.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20. It has to be noted that the first item of the properties as found set
\nout in Ex.A.1 does not tally with the first item of the properties found
\nexemplified in Ex.A.3. In fact, after selling the said 6 cents of land in the
\nmiddle, which is to the east of the property sold to said Annakkan
\nAthirshtarani, there was no land. However, the building bearing door No.2\/127A
\nis claimed to be in existence as per Ex.A.1. Under the earlier sale deed in
\nfavour of Annakkan Athirshtarani, there is no reference to the structure bearing
\ndoor No.2\/127A and for that matter the building bearing door No.2\/127A is not
\ncontemplated in the power deed also.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Based on such fact, the learned counsel for D2 and D3 would vehemently
\nargue that D1, the power of attorney was not authorised to sell the land as well
\nas the building bearing door No.2\/127A at all, but he purely for the purpose of
\nputting D2 in trouble did choose to incorporate such description as the first
\nitem of the properties in Ex.A.1. No doubt that is also a fact to be considered.
\nApparently  there was no land belonged to D2 at all to the west of the said 6
\ncents sold by D2 to D3 to the east of the 3 cents sold to Annakkan
\nAthirshtarani.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Admittedly, the plaintiff is none but D1’s wife’s brother and that
\nfact was taken note of by the Courts below and also commented upon that there
\nwas nothing to indicate that out of the sale consideration of Rs.21,000\/-, a sum
\nof Rs.20,000\/- was paid by plaintiff in favour of D1. No doubt, one of the
\nattesting witness to Ex.A.1 as well as Ex.A.2 – Pandi was examined and cross-
\nexamined. But there is no adequate explanation at all as to why for the purpose
\nof scribing Ex.A.1, the non-judicial stamp paper should have been purchased only
\nat Srivilliputthur, which is 118 Kms. from Thoothukudi, the situs of execution
\nof Ex.A.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. If really Ex.A.1 emerged on 20.12.1995 genuinely and that too in
\nconsideration of having paid a sum of Rs.20,000\/- out of the total sale
\nconsideration of Rs.21,000\/- by the plaintiff to D1, certainly neither the
\nplaintiff nor D1 would have waited further for completing the sale in the form
\nof a pukka registered sale deed. The preponderance of probabilities would govern
\nthe adjudication in civil case. If accordingly viewed, D1 would have had no
\nreason to hesitate to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on
\nreceipt of the pitherance so to say Rs.1,000\/- being the remaining sale
\nconsideration from the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 alleged to have been emerged on
\n08.08.1997, long prior to the cancellation of the power deed under Ex.B.25 by D2
\nas against D1. The principle on Res Ipsa Loquitur could rightly be applied in
\nthis factual scenario.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. I recollect the popular adage, ‘witness might lie, but the
\ncircumstances would not do so’. Disaster is found written on Exs.A.1 and A.2 in
\nthe wake of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. No doubt, there erupted some misunderstanding between D1 and D2, but
\nD1 had not chosen to initiate any legal action. Ex.B.5, dated 28.10.1997, the
\ncopy of the letter would reveal that D1 sent a reply to D2’s letter regarding
\nthe cancellation of power deed and in that he narrated the facts that he entered
\ninto an agreement to sell with the plaintiff and also executed a sale deed in
\nher favour which remained unregistered for which, no doubt D2 did not reply. But
\nthe learned counsel for D2 and D3 would submit that such a letter i.e., Ex.B.5
\nemerged only after the presentation of the plaint by the plaintiff on
\n27.10.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. It is also a fact to be noted that after the cancellation of the power
\ndeed – Ex.A.3, vide Ex.B.25 by D2, the remaining 3 cents was sold by D2 in
\nfavour of the same D3, who had already purchased the 6 cents of land. As such,
\nthe whole bit and caboodle of facts placed before me would connote and denote
\nthat a dispute erupted between D1 and D2 and in that connection D2 cancelled
\nEx.A.3 the said power deed; whereupon obviously and axiomatically for the
\npurpose of safeguarding the interest of D1, Exs.A.1 and A.2 emerged at the
\ninstance of D1 and to that effect both the Courts below rendered a finding,
\nwhich in my opinion is not perverse or illegal. Wherefore for the first time in
\nSecond Appeal, this Court cannot be called upon to give any finding that Exs.A.1
\nas well as Ex.A.2, was anterior to such cancellation.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The fact also remains that after filing of the suit, D2 filed a
\ncounter claim for recovery of possession of the property, which is in the
\npossession of the plaintiff on the ground that after obtaining injunction in the
\nsuit, the plaintiff barged into the suit property and that was ordered.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. There is nothing to indicate that D1 ever raised his little finger to
\nquestion the factum of the power having been cancelled by D2 in his favour. As
\nsuch I am of the considered view that absolutely there is no reason to interfere
\nwith concurrent finding of facts rendered au fait with law by both the Courts
\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n
\t 29. I would like to recollect and recall the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
\nCourt in Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v. Ramaniyam Real Estates (P) Ltd.<\/a>
\nreported in (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 147. Certain excerpt from it would run
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“57. There is another aspect of the matter also. In the instant case by asking
\nfor specific performance of the contract, the plaintiff purchaser is praying for
\na discretionary remedy. It is axiomatic that when a discretionary remedy is
\nprayed for by a party, such party must come to court on proper disclosure of
\nfacts. The plaint which it filed before the court in such cases must state all
\nthe facts with sufficient candour and clarity. In the instant case the plaintiff
\npurchaser made an averment in the plaint that the defendant vendor be directed
\nto return the advance amount of Rs10,00,000 with interest at the rate of 24%
\nfrom the date of payment of the said amount till the realisation and an
\nalternative prayer to that effect was also made in the prayer clause (c).\n<\/p>\n
58. However, the fact remains that prior to the filing of the suit the defendant
\nvendor returned the said amount of Rs \t10,00,000 by its letter dated 4-9-1996
\nby an account payee cheque in favour of the plaintiff and the same was sent to
\nthe plaintiff under registered post which was refused by the plaintiff on 6-9-
\n1996. The plaintiff suppressed this fact in the plaint and filed the suit on 9-
\n9-1996 with a totally contrary representation before the court as if the amount
\nhad not been returned to it by the vendor. This is suppression of a material
\nfact, and disentitles the plaintiff purchaser from getting any discretionary
\nrelief of specific performance by the court.\n<\/p>\n
59. In this connection we may refer to the Principle of Equitable Remedies by
\nI.C.F. Spry, (4th Edn., Sweet & Maxwell, 1990). Dealing with the question of
\n“clean hands” the learned author opined that where the plaintiff is shown to
\nhave materially misled the court or to have abused its process, or to have
\nattempted to do so, the discretionary relief of specific performance can be
\ndenied to him. In laying down this principle, the learned author relied on a
\ndecision of the English Court in Armstrong v. Sheppard & Short Ltd., (1959) 2 QB
\n384, QB at p.397. (See Spry, Equitable Remedies, p. \t243.)\n<\/p>\n
60. This Court has also taken the same view in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India,<\/a>
\n(2007) 6 SCC 120. At p. \t125, para 12 of the Report, this Court held that
\nit is trite law that to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary
\njurisdiction suppression must be of a material fact. This Court, of course, held
\nthat what is a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the suitor to
\nobtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
\neach case. However, by way of guidance this Court held that a material fact
\nwould mean that fact which is material for the purpose of determination of the
\nlis.\n<\/p>\n
61. Following the aforesaid tests, this Court is of the opinion that the
\nsuppression of the fact that the plaintiff refused to accept the cheque of Rs
\n\t10 lakhs sent to it by the defendant under registered post with
\nacknowledgment due in terms of Clause 9 of the contract is a material fact. So
\non that ground the plaintiff purchaser is not entitled to any relief in its suit
\nfor specific performance.”\n<\/p>\n
A mere poring over and perusal of the said decision would leave no doubt in the
\nmind of the Court that in a suit for specific performance there should not be
\nany suppression of fact or falsity involved and for that matter if a litigant
\napproaches the Court with false statements, he should be non-suited.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. On balance, I do not see any question of law, much less any
\nsubstantial question of law is involved in this matter and the Second Appeal
\ndeserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
\nconnected M.Ps. are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. The learned counsel for D1 would make an extempore submission after
\nhearing this judgment, that this Court might give liberty to D1 to take
\nindependent action to seek his remedy as against D2 and others. However, it is
\nopen for him to do so, if law permits.\n<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge,
\n  Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal District Munsif,
\n  Thoothukudi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.(MD) No.43 of 2006 and C.M.P.(MD) No.284 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 Alageswari … Appellant\/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Athimuthu Manoharan 2.Grace Vedamanicka Nadar 3.Navaneethi … Respondents\/Defendants Prayer Second Appeal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3694,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011"},"wordCount":3694,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011","name":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T11:14:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alageswari-vs-athimuthu-manoharan-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alageswari vs Athimuthu Manoharan on 10 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}