A.R.MADANA Vs. M/S. RAMNATH PUBLICATION
LAWS(SC)-2021-4-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 09,2021

A.R.Madana Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Ramnath Publication Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

S. SARALADEVI SURANA VS. G. S. SUNDARARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-297] [REFERRED TO]
KUTTUB K.Z. VS. A. SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2023-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
K. NABI RASOOL VS. SIVA PRASAD [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-79] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

L.NAGESWARA RAO, J. - (1.)These Appeals are filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by which a decree for specific performance passed by the learned Single Judge was reversed.
(2.)The Appellants filed four suits for specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 20.03.1991 and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) dated 24.01.1994. In addition, the Appellants prayed for a direction to the Respondents to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit property and a decree of mandatory injunction to deposit the title deeds with the Court. It was alleged in the plaints that the Respondent entered into separate agreements with the Appellants who belong to the same family for sale of property situated at Door No.325, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai on 20.03.1991. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale was to be concluded within a period of four months. The Respondents would produce the encumbrance certificate much before the execution and registration of the sale deeds. The Respondents should also obtain the income tax clearance certificate under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To comply with the obligation stipulated in the agreement, the first Respondent applied to the Income Tax authorities for permission to alienate the property. The Income Tax authorities passed an order for compulsory acquisition of property on 25.06.1991.
(3.)The Writ Petition filed by the Respondents challenging the order of the Income Tax authority was allowed by the Madras High Court by its judgment dated 21.12.1992. The authorities were directed to reconsider the matter afresh. The Income Tax authorities passed another order on 22.02.1993 directing purchase of the property. The said order was challenged in the High Court and an interim order of injunction was passed on 10.03.1993. The parties were directed to maintain status quo and not to change the nature of the property. In view of the developments after the agreements relating to the orders passed by the Income Tax authorities and the pendency of the Writ Petitions challenging those orders, the Appellants and the Respondents entered into four separate MOUs on 24.01.1994. The recitals of the MOUs would show that they were in addition and not in substitution of the agreements dated 20.03.1991. It was agreed that the Respondents shall continue to keep the original title deeds until completion of the sale by registration of the sale deeds. The original title deeds would be handed over to the Appellants at the time of registration. It was also recorded in the Memorandum that certain amounts were paid by the Appellants and the balance of the sale price shall be paid to the Respondents at the time of registration of the sale deeds immediately after the disposal of the Writ Petitions in their favour.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.