Madras High CourtC.Srinivasan vs P.M.Shamsuddin on 11 March, 2021Author:Krishnan RamasamyBench:Krishnan RamasamyS.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                                                    DATED : 11.03.2021\n\n                                                         CORAM :\n\n                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY\n                                               S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018\n                                                          and\n                                              Cmp.Nos.4435 & 4436 of 2018\n\n                    C.Srinivasan                                                     ... Appellant\n                                                                                     (in both appeal)\n\n                                                           Versus\n\n                    P.M.Shamsuddin                                                ... Respondent\n                                                                            (in S.A.No.171/2018)\n\n                    P.M.Akbar Ali                                                 ... Respondent\n                                                                            (in S.A.No.172/2018)\n\n                              Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed underSection 100of Code\n                    of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2018\n                    in A.S.Nos.3 & 4 of 2015 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,\n                    Krishnagiri, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014 in\n                    O.S.Nos.222 & 223 of 2012 on the file of the learned district Munsif,\n                    Krishnagiri.\n\n                                     For Appellant      : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel,\n                                     (in both appeal)     for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar\n\n                                     For Respondent     : No Appearance\n                                     (in both appeal)\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\n\n                    1/18\n                                                                       S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                                               COMMON JUDGMENTThese Second Appeals have been filed challenging the\n\n                    Judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 made in A.S. Nos. 3 & 4 of 2015 by\n\n                    the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, by reversing the\n\n                    Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014 passed in O.S. Nos. 222 & 223 of\n\n                    2012 respectively, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri.2.It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he purchased the\n\n                    suit property, with possession, by virtue of the Sale Deeds dated\n\n                    27.02.2012. The respondent (the word “respondent” would refer\n\n                    respondent in S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018 collectively) as well as the\n\n                    appellant also entered into a Memorandum of agreement (herein after\n\n                    called as agreement) dated 27.02.2012, whereby, the appellant has agreed\n\n                    to re-convey the property to the respondent, if the respondent repaid a sum\n\n                    of Rs.75,00,000/-, within a period of 5 months from the date of the\n\n                    agreement. On such payment, the appellant/plaintiff had agreed to re-convey\n\n                    the suit property to the respondent. If the respondent failed to repay the said\n\n                    amount, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement, the\n\n                    property will be devolved on the plaintiff, without any reference. Since the\n\n                    respondent herein started to cause disturbances to the appellant/plaintiff\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/2/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property,\n\n                    the appellant/plaintiff gave a complaint against the respondent/defendant\n\n                    (the word “defendant” would refer the defendant in O.S.Nos.222 & 223 of\n\n                    2012 collectively) to the Police on 27.08.2012, which was marked as Ex.A7.\n\n                    As a result, without any other options, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit\n\n                    for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and his men from\n\n                    interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties\n\n                    except due process of law.3.The respondent filed a written statement by stating that the\n\n                    respondent in both the appeals are brothers. They borrowed a sum of Rs.50\n\n                    Lakhs from the appellant/plaintiff for the purpose of completing some\n\n                    unfinished constructions and to discharge other debts, under the compulsion\n\n                    of the appellant/plaintiff, the said Sale Deeds were executed towards\n\n                    security, for lending the money, which was clearly mentioned in the\n\n                    agreement, dated 27.02.2012. There was no consideration passed on, as\n\n                    stated in the Sale Deeds. When the agreement was in existence, the\n\n                    appellant/plaintiff had fraudulently applied for transfer of Patta, and he is\n\n                    well aware of the fact that he is not entitled for it.\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/3/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.20214.Further, it is the contention of the respondent in the written\n\n                    statement that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit\n\n                    property and their cousin brother has been collecting the rent from the\n\n                    tenant in respect of the B-schedule property in O.S. No. 222 of 2012.\n\n                    Moreover, the electricity service connection also stands in the name of the\n\n                    defendant alone. Therefore, the respondent have contended that though the\n\n                    revenue records standing in the name of the appellant/plaintiff, they are not\n\n                    valid and it will not bind the respondent/defendant. In this regard, the\n\n                    respondent also gave a paper publication, to caution the public at large from\n\n                    making any negotiation to purchase the property from the plaintiff.\n\n                    Therefore, the respondent contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed.5.Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, he\n\n                    examined himself as Pw.1, and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of\n\n                    the respondent/defendant, Dw.1 to Dw.6 were examined, and as many as 18\n\n                    documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B18. The Court exhibits in Exs.C1 to\n\n                    C5 were also marked.6.The Trial Court, taking into consideration of the submissions\n\n                    made by the counsel for both sides as well as on the basis of the oral and\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/4/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    documentary evidences, came to the conclusion that Exs. A1 to A4 were\n\n                    validly executed by the defendant, which is supported by Ex.B5,\n\n                    Agreement, whereby, the plaintiff had agreed to re-convey the property to\n\n                    the defendant, if they repay Rs.75,00,000/- within five months, from the\n\n                    date of agreement. If they fails to repay the amount, the plaintiff is entitled\n\n                    to retain the properties. The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff is\n\n                    entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, however, taking note of the\n\n                    contents of Ex.B5, theTtrial Court extended the time for payment of\n\n                    Rs.75,00,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per\n\n                    month from the date of plaint, till the date of payment. In the event of\n\n                    failure on the part of the defendant to pay the amount, then the plaintiff is\n\n                    entitled to get a decree as prayed for with costs.7.Challenging the above said judgment of the Trial Court, the\n\n                    defendant filed the appeals before the Principal Subordinate Court,\n\n                    Krishnagiri in A.S.Nos.3 & 4 of 2015. After hearing both parties, the First\n\n                    Appellate Court passed the judgment and decree on 3rd January 2018,\n\n                    holding that even if the defendant failed to repay the amount within five\n\n                    months as per Ex.B5, agreement, it will not confer any title to the plaintiff\n\n                    automatically in the absence of filing a suit for declaration. In a suit for\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/5/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    bare injunction, based on Ex.B5, the plaintiff cannot get a decree for his\n\n                    title.         The Appellate Court also rendered a finding that PW1 himself\n\n                    admitted that the four sale deeds were executed only for the security\n\n                    purpose to repay the sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Appellate\n\n                    Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction\n\n                    without the relief for declaration is not proper.           While so, the Trial Court\n\n                    ought not to have directed the defendant to pay the amount of\n\n                    Rs.75,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the absence of any prayer in the suit for\n\n                    declaration. Further, the Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that\n\n                    the present transaction is in the nature of financial transactions. At this\n\n                    juncture, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the\n\n                    judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, as under:-“In the light of the above and from the clear and\n                                     categorical admission of Pw.1, this court observes that,\n                                     both the suits filed by the plaintiff for Permanent\n                                     injunction without seeking the relief of Declaration is\n                                     not proper and is not maintainable. The relief granted\n                                     by the District Munsif in directing the defendant to pay\n                                     Rs.75,00,000/- under Ex.B5, without seeking the relief of\n                                     declaration is also not proper. The District Munsif\n                                     ought not to have granted the relief of recovery of\n                                     money, without proper prayer by the plaintiff which is\n                                     beyond the scope of the Principal District Munsif. The\n                                     judgment and Decree of District Munsif needs\n                                     interference and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief\n                                     of recovery of money. The plaintiff in both the cases are\n                                     not entitled for recovery of money and therefore, both\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n                                     the appeals filed in A.S.3/15and A.S.4/15by the6/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                                    defendant/Appellants is liable to be allowed and the\n                                    Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2014 is liable to be\n                                    setaside. Both the appellants are entitled ot set aside the\n                                    Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2014, passed by the\n                                    District Munsif, Krishnagiri.”8.Challenging the common judgment and decree passed by the\n\n                    First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeals have been filed. This\n\n                    Court admitted these appeals on 02.03.2018, on the following substantial\n\n                    questions of law:-“a) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct\n                                   in law in dismissing the suit for bare injunction on the\n                                   ground that the appellant/plaintiff failed to seek the\n                                   relief of declaration, when the respondent/defendant\n                                   himself admitted the execution of Sale Deed in favour of\n                                   the appellant/plaintiff?b) Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower\n                                   Appellate Court is sustainable in law by dismissing the\n                                   suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration\n                                   is not maintainable, when the appellant/plaintiff clearly\n                                   established his title through documentary evidence\n                                   Ex.A1 to A4?c) When the issue of title is clear, simple and\n                                   straight forward the finding of Lower Appellate Court\n                                   driving the appellant/plaintiff to seek the costlier and\n                                   more cumbersome remedy of declaration is sustainable\n                                   in law?https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/7/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021d) Is not the judgment and decree of the Lower\n                                   Appellate Court perverse for directing the plaintiff to\n                                   file a comprehensive prayer for declaration, when the\n                                   suit is one for injunction simpliciter and the question of\n                                   title need not be gone into?e) Is not the defendant estopped underSection 115of the Evidence Act from disputing the factum of\n                                   appellant/plaintiff's possession of the suit properties\n                                   when the Sale Deeds Ex.A1 to A4 itself has recorded the\n                                   delivery of possession to the buyer?”9.At the time of admission of these appeals, notice was ordered\n\n                    to respondent in both the appeals. After completion of service, the name of\n\n                    the respondent also printed in the cause list. Today, when the matter is\n\n                    called, though the name was printed in the cause list, the respondent neither\n\n                    appeared in person nor engaged any counsel. Therefore, this Court proceeds\n\n                    to hear the appellant and pass the following judgment in the appeals.10.Heard     Mr.S.Parthasarathy,     learned       Senior        Counsel\n\n                    appearing for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. He\n\n                    submitted that the appellant herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and\n\n                    he purchased the property by virtue of Ex.A1 to A4. He admitted the fact\n\n                    that it was a loan transaction, due to which, a separate agreement, dated\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/8/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    27.02.2012 was also entered and the same was marked by the\n\n                    respondent/defendant as Ex.B5, whereby the respondent/defendant had\n\n                    agreed to repay a sum of Rs.75 Lakhs to the appellant/plaintiff, within a\n\n                    period of 5 months from the date of agreement. As per the recitals of the\n\n                    Sale Deeds, the possession was handed over to the appellant/plaintiff and\n\n                    he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the appellant has\n\n                    been enjoying the property, the respondent/defendant started giving\n\n                    troubles. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.Nos.222 &\n\n                    223 of 2012, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from\n\n                    interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the possession.11.It is seen that though the time was fixed as 5 months under\n\n                    Ex.B5/ agreement, the respondent/defendant have failed to repay the\n\n                    amount to the plaintiff as per the recitals in the agreement. In Ex.B5, it is\n\n                    clearly stated that if the agreed amount of Rs.75 Lakhs is repaid, it is the\n\n                    duty of the appellant/plaintiff to re-convey the suit property to the\n\n                    respondent/defendant.      On    the   other   hand,       in     case,       if     the\n\n                    respondent/defendant failed to repay the sum of Rs.75 Lakhs, the property\n\n                    shall automatically devolve on the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, after the expiry\n\n                    of the period of 5 months as mentioned in Ex.B5, if the defendant fails to\n\n                    repay the amount, then, the appellant/plaintiff will become absolute owner\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/9/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    of the suit property. Taking into consideration of all these aspects, the Trial\n\n                    Court had passed a well considered and reasoned judgment. The Trial court\n\n                    has come to the conclusion that there were Sale Deeds executed in favour of\n\n                    the plaintiff, by virtue of the said Sale Deeds, the possession was handed\n\n                    over to the plaintiff. Further, after a thorough scrutiny of all the documents,\n\n                    the Trial Court found that in case, if the respondent/defendant repaid the\n\n                    sum of Rs.75 Lakhs in terms of Ex.B5, the appellant/plaintiff is supposed to\n\n                    re-convey the suit property. Thus, the Trial Court taken into consideration\n\n                    that the time limit of 5 months fixed in the Ex.B5 and the transaction of\n\n                    this, in the nature of financial, though the respondent failed to pay as per\n\n                    Ex.B5, within 5 months, The Trial Court by applying the principles of\n\n                    equity, granted 5 more months to the respondent, to pay a sum of\n\n                    Rs.75,00,000/- to the plaintiff as agreed by both parties by virtue of Ex.B5,\n\n                    from the date of Judgment. However, the respondent failed to pay the same\n\n                    as per the Judgment of Trial Court. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel\n\n                    contended that the property would devolve automatically in favour of the\n\n                    plaintiff. The said well considered judgment has been interfered, by the first\n\n                    Appellate Court in the appeals in A.S.No.3 & 4 of 2015. The First Appellate\n\n                    Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not filed the suit\n\n                    for declaration and in the absence of such a relief, he is not entitled for relief\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/10/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    as sought in the suit.12.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the finding of the\n\n                    First Appellate Court is not proper as there was no dispute over title to the\n\n                    suit property in the present case. Therefore, declaratory relief is not\n\n                    necessary. As per Ex.B5, the property automatically devolved on the\n\n                    plaintiff immediately upon the failure of the defendant to repay the amount\n\n                    of Rs.75 Lakhs.      The defendant also admitted the execution of Ex.B5,\n\n                    agreement. While so, the Trial Court judgment and decree is required to be\n\n                    restored and the First Appellate Court Judgment and decree is liable to be\n\n                    set aside.13.Heard, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the\n\n                    appellant and perused the materials available on records.14.On a perusal of records, Exs.A1 to A9, Exs.B1 to B18,\n\n                    Exs.C1 to C5 and the oral evidences of Dw.1 to Dw.6, it is evident that the\n\n                    plaintiff purchased the suit property under Exs.A1 to A4, Sale Deeds dated\n\n                    27.02.2012 from the defendant. On the same day, a mutual agreement was\n\n                    entered and the same was marked by the defendant as Ex.B5. On perusal of\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/11/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    the above said oral and documentary evidences and the agreement, the\n\n                    respondent/defendant is liable to repay the sum of Rs.75 Lakhs, within 5\n\n                    months from the date of agreement. In case, if there is any default in\n\n                    payment by the defendant, the property will devolve on the plaintiff. At this\n\n                    juncture, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant clause in\n\n                    Memorandum of Agreement dated 27.02.2012 hereunder:-“nkw;go    bjhifia         ,d;w   Kjy;    5\n                                   (Ie;J)     khjk;      thapjhtpw;Fs;     1.     2\n                                   yf;fkpl;lth;fsplkpUe;J            3         tJ\n                                   yf;fkpl;ltuhfpa     ehd; bgw;Wf;bfhz;l gpwF\n                                   nkw;go     brhj;Jf;fis        jpUg;gp   1.     2\n                                   yf;fkpl;ltUf;F      fpua      Mtzk;      bra;J\n                                   bfhLf;f KGkdJld; rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/ nkYk;\n                                   mjw;fhf      fhyp     ifbaGj;jpl;l      !;lhk;g;\n                                   ngg;gUk; 2 brf;Ffs; (fhnrhiyfs;) ,e;jpad;\n                                   t';fp      fhnrhiyfis            brf;F      vz;/\n                                   bjhif/62.00.000-?         ,e;jpad;         t';fp\n                                   fhnrhiyfis              jpUg;gp        bfhLf;f\n                                   rk;kjpf;fpnwd;/    nkw;go     thapjh     jtWk;\n                                   gl;rj;jpy;   nkw;go     brhj;Jf;fis        ehnd\n                                   mDgtpj;Jf;bfhs;sntz;oaJ           vd;W     ,jd;\n                                   K:yk; rk;kjpf;fnwhk;/”15.This agreement was signed by the appellant as well as by the\n\n                    respondent. By virtue of the sale deeds, the possession of the suit property\n\n                    was handed over to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the Sale Deeds.\n\n                    These facts are admitted. Under these circumstances, since the respondent\n\n                    started giving disturbance by interfering with the peaceful possession and\n\n                    enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/12/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    Court. After considering all the documents, oral and documentary\n\n                    evidences, and upon hearing the arguments by both parties, the Trial Court\n\n                    held that the execution of Ex.B5, agreement was admitted by both parties\n\n                    and as per Ex.B5, the defendant has to repay a sum of Rs.75 Lakhs to the\n\n                    plaintiff, within 5 months and in default, the property would devolve on the\n\n                    plaintiff. Inspite of the said default clause, the Trial Court granted 5 more\n\n                    months, on equity to the defendant, from the date of the judgment and\n\n                    decree, for repayment of the said amount of Rs.75 Lakhs. Even within the\n\n                    time granted by the Trial Court, the defendant failed to repay the amount of\n\n                    Rs.75 Lakhs. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant\n\n                    portion of the Trial Court Judgment, which reads as follows:-“40.Though the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to get\n                                   the decree as prayed for, this court wants to consider\n                                   about the situations of both parties and their intentions\n                                   reflected under Ex.B5, in the interestof justice this court\n                                   has to give an opportunity to the defendant for marking\n                                   amicable settlement between the both parties and to avoid\n                                   the plurality of the proceedings, thus the defendant are\n                                   directed to repay the agreeable amount of Rs.75,00,000/-\n                                   mentioned under Ex.B5 to the plaintiff with interest at\n                                   12% per month for the said amount from the date of said\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n                                   Memorandum of understanding understanding under13/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                                   Ex.B5. In this Juncture, this court should necessarily rely\n                                   upon the legal maxim bonus judex secumdum aequum et\n                                   bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert i.e A\n                                   good judge decides according to justice and right and\n                                   prefers equity to strict law. (ey;ybjhU                  ePjpgjp\n                                   epahak; kw;Wk; neh;ikapd; go Kot[ bra;thh.Flikahd             rl;lj;jpid          tpl           jifik\n                                   bewpf;nf Kd;Dupika mspg;ghu;). This court also\n                                   considers the another legal maxim               actus curiae\n                                   neminem gravabit i.e. An act of Court shall prejudice no\n                                   one.In the long run, the defendant are directed to pay\n                                   the agreeable amount of Rs.75,00,000/- mentioned under\n                                   Ex.B5 to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per month from\n                                   27.02.2012 to till the realization of the entire amount\n                                   within 5 months from the date of judgment, failing which\n                                   the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for with\n                                   cost.”16.A perusal of the above judgment of the Trial Court, it\n\n                    appears         that     it is a well reasoned judgment.      Though         there was no\n\n                    necessity for giving a further time limit to repay the said amount of\n\n                    Rs.75 Lakhs to the defendant, in terms of Ex.B5, by taking note of the\n\n                    fact that it was a loan transaction, it has granted 5 more months time, on\n\n                    equity, from the date of the judgment. Therefore, I do not find any\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/14/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    infirmity in the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. The\n\n                    appellant/plaintiff agreed for the said Judgment, hence, he has not preferred\n\n                    any appeal.17.The First Appellate Court after having admitted the fact that\n\n                    there were Sale Deeds duly executed by the defendant in favour of the\n\n                    plaintiff and on the same day an agreement was also executed under Ex.B5\n\n                    whereby the defendant agreed to pay Rs.75 Lakhs, within 5 months from the\n\n                    date of agreement, and in the event of default, the property would devolve\n\n                    in favour of the plaintiff, however, it has wrongly held that there was no\n\n                    relief sought for declaration of title to the property and the suit was filed\n\n                    only for a permanent injunction, hence, the suit is not maintainable.18.In the present case, this Court is of the view that the\n\n                    declaratory relief is not necessary. In case, if there was any dispute with\n\n                    regard to the title to the suit property, in which case, seeking the relief of\n\n                    declaration would arise. The Sale Deeds were executed in favour of the\n\n                    plaintiff by the defendant in both suit through Exs.A1 to A4, which were\n\n                    admitted by both parties. The repayment of a sum of Rs.75 Lakhs by the\n\n                    defendant to the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.B5 is also admitted and there was a\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/15/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    rider in the said agreement, in case, if there any default in payment within\n\n                    the period of 5 months, from the date of agreement, the property would\n\n                    devolve automatically on the plaintiff. The said fact was also admitted by\n\n                    both parties and accepted by the Courts below. Under these circumstances,\n\n                    there is no necessity for filing the suit for declaration because the right of\n\n                    the party by virtue of Ex.B5 and Exs.A1 to A4 already been determined.\n\n                    Therefore, the finding of the First Appellate Court with regard to the\n\n                    maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction in the absence of relief\n\n                    of declaration is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.19.The Trial Court considering the nature of the transaction\n\n                    between the plaintiff and defendant, it had granted further time of 5 more\n\n                    months for repayment of the amount of Rs.75 Lakhs to the plaintiff by the\n\n                    defendant and in the event of any default, the plaintiff is entitled for a\n\n                    decree as prayed for. The defendant failed to pay the amount of Rs.75\n\n                    Lakhs, within 5 months time as granted by the Trial Court. Thus, the\n\n                    property would be automatically devolved on the plaintiff.                 The Court\n\n                    cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of Ex.B5 and Exs.A1 to A4, as\n\n                    long as the said documents are admitted by both the parties. The First\n\n                    Appellate Court had failed to consider the material evidences in proper\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/16/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n                    perspective. Thus, it had come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the\n\n                    plaintiff without a declaratory relief is bad. Therefore, the judgment and\n\n                    decree of the First Appellate Court is suffered with infirmities and the same\n\n                    is liable to set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court\n\n                    is to be restored. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law framed by\n\n                    this Court, dated 02.03.2018 are answered in favour of the appellant.20.In the result, the Second Appeals are allowed. The Judgment\n\n                    and Decree dated 03.01.2018 in A.S.Nos.3 & 4 of 2015 passed by the\n\n                    learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, is set aside and the\n\n                    Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2014 in O.S.Nos.222 & 223 of 2012\n\n                    passed by the learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri is restored. No costs.\n\n                    Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.11.03.2021\n\n                    Index: Yes/No\n                    Internet: Yes/No\n                    Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order\n                    klt\n\n                    To1.The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.2.The District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/17/18S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018, dt.11.03.2021\n\n\n\n\n                                   KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.klt\n\n\n\n\n                                     S.A.Nos.171 & 172 of 2018\n                                                           and\n                                   Cmp.Nos.4435 & 4436 of 2018\n\n\n\n\n                                                             11.03.2021\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/18/18