Madras High Court
SA/312/2024 of SHAMEMBEE Vs SATHIYAKALA on 27 October 2026
SA No. 312 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
SA No. 312 of 2024
and CMP.No.9422 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010372052024}
Shamembee
W/o. Mahammed John, No.100A, Milath Nagar, Chengam Town, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
Appellant(s)/Plaintiff
Vs
1. Sathiyakala
W/o. Rajavel, Res at Krishnavaram Village (Road Junction), Paramananthal Post, Chengam Tk, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
2.Gowtham
S/o. Rajavel, Res at Krishnavaram Village (Road Junction), Paramananthal Post, Chengam Tk, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
3.Ishwarya
D/o. Rajavel, Res at Krishnavaram Village (Road Junction), Paramananthal Post, Chengam Tk, Tiruvannamalai Dt.
Respondent(s)/Defendants
PRAYER
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree
SA No. 312 of 2024
dated 22.08.2023 passed in AS No.03 of 2023 (CNR No.TNTM01-001180-
2023) on the file of the Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022 passed in OS No.342 of 2020 (CNR
No.TNTM1F0012762020) on the file of the Sub Court, Chengam.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.P.Mani
For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.Munusamy For RR 1 To 3
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Challenging the concurrent finding of the courts below, the appellant/ plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.
2. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed suit for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 22.06.2015 and sought for delivery of possession of the suit property. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the bona fide of the sale agreement and that neither he proved his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said findings, this Second Appeal is filed.
SA No. 312 of 2024
3. On going through the entire typed set of papers, this court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.
4. Pending appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff sought for refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents raised objection stating that the defendants borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and as a security for the loan amount, sale agreement came into force and as such, the defendants borrowed the amount of only Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants however submits that the defendants are ready to repay the amount.
5. Considering the facts of the case and since the issue is pending since 2015 and before the courts for more than 10 years the matter is under litigation, if 12% interest is added to the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the amount comes to Rs.2,20,000/-. Since the plaintiff is standing before the court near about ten years, the defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- [Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only] directly to the plaintiff. Time for payment is four months. If there is any deviation, the matter will be reopened.
SA No. 312 of 2024
6. With the above direction, the second appeal is disposed of. No substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP.No.9422 of 2024 is closed. 27-10-2026 nvsri Note: Issue order copy on or before 29/10/2026 To
1. The Additional District Court, Tiruvannamalai,
2. The Sub Court, Chengam.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
SA No. 312 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. nvsri SA No. 312 of 2024
27-10-2026