2026:MHC:142A.S.No.1091 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.10.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

1.A.L.Geetha Narayanan

2.A.L.Narayanan (Died)

3.A.L.Rajesh ... Appellants

(A2-Died, A3 is brought on record as LR’s of deceaed A2, vide

order of Court dated 08.12.2023 made in CMP.No.27864/2023

in A.S.No.1091/2004)

vs.

1.S.Sriraman

(R1-Died, RR3 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of the

deceased R1 vide Court order dated 15.04.2019 made in

CMP.Nos.346, 347 and 348/2015 in A.S.No.1091/2004)

2.S.Ramesh

(Respondent not necessary party in this appeal)

3.V.S.Bala (Died)

(R3-Died, R4, R5 and R7 are the LRs of deceased R3 vide

Court order dated 02.09.2025 in A.S.No.1091/2004)

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

4.V.S.Ramsundar

5.V.S.Sridhar

6.R.Vijayaprashant (died)

(R6-Died, RR8 and 9 are brought on record as LRs of R6

vide Court order dated 15.04.2019 made in

CMP.Nos.1699, 1703 and1709/2019 in A.S.No.1091/2004)

7.R.Ajay Karthik

8.Hemalatha

9.Adhithya (minor)

S/o. Late R.Vijayaprashant

No.10, Manivasakar Street,

Kamakottai Nagar, Valasaravakkam,

Chennai-600 087. ... Respondents

PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure

Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.2673 of 1997

dated 10.06.2003 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast

Track No.1, Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

Senior Advocate

for M/s.P.Dinesh Kumar

For R4, R5 and R7 to R9: Mr.M.Kamalanathan

For R1 and R3 : Died

For R2 : Given up

2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants herein. The

1

st

respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement

of sale dated 23.06.1983 with alternative prayer for recovery of damages.

The said suit was decreed by granting primary relief of specific

performance. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 4 and 5 have come

before this Court.

Plaint Averments:-

2. According to the 1

st

respondent/plaintiff, the suit Flat was allotted

to the 1

st

defendant by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The defendants 2 and

3 are the wife and son of 1

st

defendant. The appellants/defendants 4 and 5 are

the daughter and son-in-law of the 1

st

defendant. It was stated by the plaintiff

that the 1

st

defendant represented to him that the suit Flat was allotted to him

by Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he had made a total payment of

Rs.32,461/- towards portion of the sale consideration and remaining amount

had to be paid in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.923/- for the next 7

years. It was further stated that the 1

st

defendant agreed to execute a Sale

Agreement in favour of plaintiff on an understanding that the entire amount

paid by the 1

st

defendant to Housing Board shall be repaid by the plaintiff to

3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

1

st

defendant at once and balance amount shall be paid by way of monthly

installments by the plaintiff to the Housing Board directly and after payment

of all instalments, the Housing Board would execute a Sale Deed in favour

of the 1

st

defendant and thereafter, the 1

st

defendant should execute a Sale

Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff agreed for the said course,

a Sale Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to

3 on 23.06.1983.

3. It was also stated that the 1

st

defendant was the allottee of the

Housing Board and the property should be treated as his self-acquired

property. However, by way of abandon caution, the defendants 2 and 3 were

added as signatories in the Sale Agreement. As per the terms of the Sale

Agreement, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.32,461/- to the 1

st

defendant

by way of cheque, dated 23.06.1983. He also paid the entire balance sale

consideration by way of monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.923/- for the

next 7 years. It was also stated that on the date of agreement itself, the

1

st

defendant executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of

the plaintiff and put him in possession of the property. Though the plaintiff

had completed payment of entire amount due to the Board by June-1992, the

1

st

defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the

4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

meantime, the 4

th

defendant/daughter of 1

st

defendant sent a communication

to Canara Bank, a tenant inducted by the plaintiff in the suit property

claiming right over the same. Then only, the plaintiff acquired knowledge

about the Sale Deed executed by Housing Board in favour of 1

st

defendant

and the subsequent Settlement Deed executed by 1

st

defendant in favour of

4

th

defendant, his daughter. Since the defendants failed to act as per the terms

of Sale Agreement, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for Specific

Performance of the Agreement. Alternatively, the plaintiff also sought for

recovery of the amount paid by him and also the amount spent by him by

way of various amenities to the suit property.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. Pending suit, the

defendants 1 and 2 also died. The defendants 3 and 4 are their legal

representatives, already on record. The defendants 4 and 5 alone filed

written statement and resisted the suit. According to them, the Suit Sale

Agreement was not a legally enforceable one as the same was executed in

contravention of the specific condition in the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement

entered between 1

st

defendant and Housing Board, which prohibits alienation

of the property to the third party till the execution of absolute Sale Deed. It

was also stated that there was an understanding between the 1

st

defendant

5/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

and plaintiff that the plaintiff should reside in the suit property as a tenant

and he agreed to pay the entire amount paid by 1

st

defendant to Housing

Board and the same shall be treated as advance amount for the rental

agreement. It was further stated that plaintiff agreed to pay the future

instalments to Housing Board in lieu of payment of rent for occupying the

premises. It was further stated that to enable the plaintiff to pay further

instalments to Housing Board, a Power Deed was executed in his favour and

at that point of time the plaintiff obtained the signature of the 1

st

defendant in

the blank papers and stamp papers and the same had been used to concoct

the Suit Sale Agreement. The 4

th

defendant also stated that subsequent to

execution of Sale Deed in favour of 1

st

defendant, he executed a Settlement

Deed in her favour and hence, she was the owner of the property. Therefore,

the defendants 4 and 5 resisted the suit mainly on the ground that there was

no agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff and the suit agreement was

concocted one.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the

following issues:-

“1/ thjpf;F Mjuthf 1 Kjy; 3 gpujpthjpfs; 23/06/83Mk; njjpapl;l fpua

xg;ge;jk; vGjpf; bfhLj;jJ cz;ikah?

6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

2/ thjp Vw;wij Mw;Wjy; gupfhuk; bgWtjw;F jFjpa[iltuh?

3/ thjpf;F ntW vd;d gupfhuk; fpilf;fj; jf;fJ?”

6. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the Attestor

to the Suit Sale Agreement-Ex.A2 was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the

plaintiff, 12 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A12. On the side of the

defendants, the 4

th

defendant was examined as DW.1 and 16 documents were

marked on their side as Exs.B1 to B16.

7. The Trial Court based on the evidence available on record, came to

the conclusion that the Suit Sale Agreement was a genuine one and granted

relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 4 and

5 have come before this Court.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would

contend that the suit Sale Agreement is opposed to public policy as the same

was executed in violation of bar contained in the Lease-cum-Agreement

between the Housing Board and the 1

st

defendant. He also referred to the

Allotment Manual of the Housing Board in this regard. It is further

submitted that when there is a prohibition against the alienation, the 1

st

7/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

defendant ought not to have entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff

and hence, the Sale Agreement shall be treated as void. He further submitted

that on the date of entering into Sale Agreement, the 1

st

defendant had no

title over the suit property and hence, the agreement entered into by him to

convey the property which was not belonged to him on the date of

agreement is invalid in law. In support of his contention, the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments:-

(i) G.T.Girish vs. Y.Subba Raju (Dead) by Legal Representatives and

another reported in (2022) 12 SCC 321.

(ii) Narayanamma and another vs. Govindappa and others reported in

(2019) 19 SCC 42.

(iii) P.M.Thangavel vs. M.Ramamoorthy and others reported in 2019-4-

L.W. 512.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4, 5

and 7 to 9 would submit that the execution of Suit Sale Agreement was duly

proved by examination of attestor to the document and hence, genuineness

of the same has been rightly accepted by the Trial Court. He further

submitted that the Allotment Manual of Housing Board relied on by the

learned Senior Counsel for the appellants will not have statutory force and

8/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

therefore, the same cannot be pressed into service against the Suit Sale

Agreement. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the terms of

agreement, the amount already paid by the 1

st

defendant to the Housing

Board was repaid by the plaintiff to 1

st

defendant and the balance amount

due to the Housing Board was also paid by the plaintiff by way of monthly

instalments for 7 years and in such circumstances, the plaintiff discharged

his obligations under the agreement scrupulously and hence, he is entitled to

specific performance of the agreement.

10. Based on the pleadings of the parties and submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for either side, the following points are taken up

for consideration in this appeal:-

(a) Whether the Suit Sale Agreement is valid and enforceable in law?

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Specific Performance of Suit Sale

Agreement?

Discussion on Point Nos.(a) and (b):-

11. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to

1

st

defendant by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and he paid part of the Sale

Consideration due to the Housing Board and was unable to pay the

9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

remaining part of the Sale Consideration, which was to be paid in monthly

instalments for 7 years. In such circumstances, he entered into agreement

with the plaintiff and as per the terms of agreement, plaintiff agreed to pay

the 1

st

defendant the portion of the sale consideration paid by him to the

Housing Board and also agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the

Housing Board directly. The plaintiff paid the amount already paid by 1

st

defendant by way of cheque and with regard to that there is no dispute.

Likewise, the plaintiff paid the entire balance monthly instalments to the

Housing Board and entire amount payable to the Housing Board had been

discharged. With regard to these facts, there is no dispute between the

parties.

12. The prayer for specific performance was mainly opposed on the

ground that Suit Sale Agreement is against the prohibition contained in the

Allotment Manual of Housing Board, which restrains alienation of the

property by the allottee in favour of a third party till he gets Pacca Sale Deed

from the Housing Board. Now, the main question to be decided is whether

the act of 1

st

defendant in entering into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff

would amount to a violation of prohibition contained under the Allotment

Manual of Housing Board.

10/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

13. First of all, the Allotment Manual of Housing Board cannot be

equated with Statute or Rules framed under the Statute. Therefore, the

prohibition contained in the Allotment Manual of Housing Board cannot be

treated as statutory one. It was contended on behalf of the

appellants/defendants 4 and 5 that there is a prohibition in the Lease-cum-

Sale Agreement entered between 1

st

defendant and Housing Board and the

same has been violated. The Lease-cum-Sale Agreement has not been

marked as an exhibit in the suit. Therefore, we are unable to find out the

exact prohibition contained therein. Even assuming there is a prohibition

against alienation in the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement entered between the 1

st

defendant and the Housing Board, the same is contractual one and it cannot

be equated with prohibition under the statute.

14. Even though, the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement entered between 1

st

defendant and the Housing Board has not been marked, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for appellant by relying on Allotment Manual of Housing

Board submitted it prohibits 1

st

defendant from assigning or transfering his

or her interest in the property to 3

rd

party till he gets sale deed from Housing

Board. It is settled law that Sale Agreement per se does not create any

interest in an immovable property. Even according to the appellants, the

11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

prohibition in the Housing Board Manual is against the alienation of the

property by the allottees, till Pacca Sale Deed is executed in their favour. In

the case on hand, before execution of Sale Deed in favour of 1

st

defendant,

he entered into a Sale Agreement with the plaintiff. Mere agreement of sale

will not amount to alienation of the property or transfer of interest thereon as

the Agreement Holder will not acquire any interest under the agreement in

respect of the agreement mentioned property. In such circumstances, the act

of entering into the Sale Agreement cannot be treated as an alienation or

transfer of the property by the 1

st

defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the prohibition contained in Allotment Manual of Housing Board

restraining alienation is not at all violated. The plaintiff seeks specific

performance of the agreement only after execution of Pacca Sale Deed in

favour of 1

st

defendant. Alienation after Sale Deed in favour of 1

st

defendant

is not prohibited by the Allotment Manual. In such circumstances, I am

unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants that the agreement entered into between the

plaintiff and the 1

st

defendant is prohibited by law and hence, unenforceable.

15. In Narayanamma vs. Govindappa case cited supra, the Apex

Court came to the conclusion that agreement therein was hit by Section 61 of

12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Since agreement was held to be hit

by Statute, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the agreement of sale

could not be enforced and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. Hence, the

said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, where there is

no statutory prohibition.

16. In G.T.Girish vs. Y.Subba Raju case cited supra, the agreement

was held to be violative of statutory rules framed under City of Bangalore

Improvement Act, 1945. Again in that case factually it was held that the

agreement entered into between the parties was violative of statutory rules.

Hence, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

17. In P.M.Thangavel vs. M.Ramamoorthy case cited supra, this

Court came to the conclusion that agreement entered into between the parties

was hit by restriction imposed by allotment letter prohibiting alienation and

therefore, the agreement was unenforceable in law.

18. As we discussed above, the Agreement of Sale does not create

any interest in an immovable property, merely because 1

st

defendant entered

13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

into an Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff, we cannot come to the

conclusion that there was alienation of the property. However, there is no

prohibition in the allotment manual for alienation of the property after

execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the 1

st

defendant. Here 1

st

defendant

agreed to sell the property only after execution of Sale Deed in his favour. In

such circumstances, I do not think the execution of mere agreement which

does not create interest in the property would amount to alienation of the

property in violation of the prohibition contained in allotment manual.

Hence, I am unable to accept the view expressed in P.M.Thangavel case.

19. I had an occasion to consider the enforceability of Sale

Agreement like this in S.Rajeshwari and others vs. P.Selvi and others

reported in MANU/TN/6931/2023, the relevant observation reads as

follows:-

“6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel

for the appellants that the suit sale agreement which was

entered into prior to execution of sale deed in favour of

Sreerangam is a void document as Sreerangam had no title to

convey to the 1st respondent/plaintiff on the date of agreement.

Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that in the Lease-cum-Sale agreement entered

between Sreerangam and Tamil Nadu Housing Board, there

14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

was a prohibition restraining the allottee from alienating

property to third parties, the said Lease-cum-Sale agreement

has not been marked by the appellants before the Courts below.

Therefore, this Court is not in a position to come to the

conclusion that what was the nature of prohibition contained in

the said Lease-cum-Sale agreement between Sreerangam and

Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Even assuming that there was a

prohibition as mentioned by the learned counsel for the

appellants, it will only enable the Housing Board to cancel the

allotment in favour of Sreerangam. However, as per the

admitted facts in this case, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has

not taken any steps against the said Sreerangam. However,

proceeded to execute pucca sale deed in favour of 1

st

appellant,

wife of Sreerangam under Ex.B1 subsequent to the death of

Sreerangam. In such circumstances, the contention raised by

the learned counsel for the appellants that sale agreement

entered into between Sreerangam's power agent and 1

st

respondent is not a valid contract in view of the prohibition

contained in the Lease-cum-Sale agreement entered with

Housing Board is not acceptable to this Court.

7. Section 13(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads

as follows:-

13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no

title or imperfect title.

(1) Where a person contracts to sell or let certain

immovable property having no title or only an imperfect title,

15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

the purchaser or lessee (subject to the other provisions of this

Chapter), has the following rights, namely:-

(a) if the vendor or lessor has subsequently to the

contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser or

lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such

interest;

8. A reading of the above act makes it clear that in a

case where a person enters into a sale agreement with another

person having imperfect or no title over the subject matter of

the agreement and the agreement vendor acquires any interest

in the property subsequent to the agreement, the agreement

vendee can very well compel him to make good the contract out

of such interest acquired by him subsequently. Therefore, in the

case on hand though on the date of suit sale agreement

Sreerangam did not have any right to convey in respect of

subject matter of the agreement, subsequently, on 05.03.2013,

the Housing Board executed pucca sale deed in favour of 1st

appellant, wife of deceased Sreerangam. In such circumstances,

the 1st appellant, who is a legal representative of the deceased

Sreerangam, acquired good title over the subject matter of the

agreement subsequently by execution of pucca sale deed in her

favour. In such circumstances, by virtue of Section 13(1) (a) of

Specific Relief Act, the 1st respondent/plaintiff is entitled to

compel specific performance of the agreement by one of the

legal representatives of the deceased Sreerangam who acquired

good title.”

16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

20. In view of the above, I hold the Suit Sale Agreement is legally

enforceable one and Point No.(a) is answered in favour of the respondents

and against the appellants.

21. As per the terms of agreement, the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum

of Rs.32,461/- paid by the 1

st

respondent to the Board and he also agreed to

pay the balance Sale Consideration in monthly instalments at the rate of

Rs.923/- per month for the next 7 years. The plaintiff paid the entire amount

as per the agreement of sale and there is no default on his part. With regard

to this aspect, there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is clear

the plaintiff performed his obligation under the agreement scrupulously and

thereby, proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the

agreement. In the light of the above admitted position, I hold plaintiff proved

his continuous readiness and willingness from the inception of the

agreement and hence, he is entitled to specific performance of agreement as

prayed for. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the same and rightly decreed

the suit.

22. Yet another contention raised by the defendants was with regard

to the genuineness of the agreement. It was the case of the defendants that at

17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

the time of executing Power Deed in favour of the plaintiff to enable him to

make payment to the Housing Board, the plaintiff got the signature of

the 1

st

defendant in blank stamp papers and the same could have been used

to create the Suit Sale Agreement.

23. A perusal of Ex.A2-Sale Agreement would indicate the same was

signed by defendants 1 to 3. In the written statement filed by

appellants/defendants 4 and 5, they pleaded that the signature of 1

st

defendant was obtained in blank stamp papers. But they have not stated

anything about the signature of defendants 2 and 3.

24. Curiously, the defendants 1 to 3, who subscribed their signature

in the Suit Sale Agreement failed to deny the same by filing written

statement and they remained exparte. Though defendants 1 and 2 died

pending suit, the 4

th

defendant did not take any steps to call the surviving 3

rd

defendant as a witness on her side. The plea raised by the defendants that

signature of the 1

st

defendant was obtained in blank stamp papers was

supported by evidence of 4

th

defendant. She was not signatory to Ex.A2-Sale

Agreement and based on her evidence, we cannot safely come to the

conclusion that signature was obtained in blank papers. The plaintiff, who

18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

was signatory to Ex.A2-Sale Agreement entered box and deposed in favour

of his case. Further the first attesting witness in Suit Sale Agreement was

examined as PW.2 and deposed about the due execution of sale agreement.

In such circumstances, the plea raised by the defendants as if, the suit Sale

Agreement was prepared by using the signature of the 1

st

defendant obtained

in blank papers could not be accepted and I hold the execution of Suit Sale

Agreement is duly proved by plaintiff by leading cogent evidence. In view

of the discussion made earlier, the Point No.(b) is answered against the

appellants and in favour of the respondents.

25. Accordingly, the first appeal fails and the same is dismissed by

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. No costs.

07.01.2026

Index :Yes

Speaking order:Yes

Neutral Citation:Yes

dm

To

The Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Fast Track No.1, Chennai.

19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.1091 of 2004

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm

Pre-delivery judgment made in

A.S.No.1091 of 2 004

07.01.2026

20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis