M.RANGASAMY vs Mara Naicker (Died) 1. M.P. Muthu

SA No. 54 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
SA No. 54 of 2026
and
CMP.No.1739 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012594962025}
1. M.Rangasamy
S/o.Mara Naicker, No.37, bharathi
Nagar, Goundanaikenpalayam,
Tiruppur
2. R. Vignesh
S/o. Rangasamy, No.37, Bharathi
Nagar, Goundanaickenpalayam,
Tiruppur.
3. Jothilakshmi
W/o. Rangasamy, No.37, Bharathi
Nagar, Goundanaickenpalayam,
Tiruppur.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Mara Naicker (Died) 1. M.P. Muthu
S/o.Palanisami Naicker, No.1,
Selvalakshmi Nagar Pirivu, M.S.Nagar,
Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur-7
2.Rangammal
W/o. Late. Mara Naicker, No.37,
Bharathi Nagar,
Goundanaickenpalayam, Tiruppur.
3.Rajendran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
S/o. Late. Mara Naicker, D.No.12/13,
M.S. Nagar, 5th Street, Tiruppur Dt.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure prays to set
aside the judgement and decree dated 02-04-2025 passed in AS.No.77 of 2019
on the file of the Spl. Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Tiruppur reversing the Judgment and decree dt. 22.03.2018 made in OS
No.372/2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.
For Appellant(s): MR.Arun FOR
MR.M.Guruprasad
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Mutharasu For R1
R-3 - No Appearance
R2 - No Such Person
JUDGEMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Judgement and Decree
dated 02-04-2025 passed in AS.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court
for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur reversing the Judgment
and decree dated 22.03.2018 made in OS No.372/2011 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.
2 . For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they
were ranked in the suit.
3. Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate Court, the
defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
4. Before the trial Court, the first respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit
seeking the relief of specific performance, contending that the first defendant,
being the owner of the suit property, entered into a sale agreement dated
04.09.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. Under the said agreement,
the first defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within two years from the
date of the agreement, upon receipt of the balance sale consideration of
Rs.20,000/-. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first defendant
subsequently executed a settlement deed in favour of his son on 06.12.2009 and
thereafter, the property was sold to the third and fourth defendants. Hence, the
plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance.
5. The first defendant filed a written statement, and the second defendant
also filed a written statement disputing the sale agreement. However, neither of
them entered the witness box to adduce evidence. After framing the necessary
issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record,
the trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court held that the period of two
years stipulated in the sale agreement was unusually long, particularly
considering the meagre balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-, and that no
satisfactory explanation had been offered for fixing such a long period. The
Court further observed that the plaintiff had not deposited the balance sale
consideration, which, according to the trial Court, indicated that the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Court
also found that the evidence of P.W.2 was unreliable, observing that he was a
friend of the sixth defendant and a close associate of the plaintiff. Accordingly,
the suit was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff
preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court
reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. In doing so, the
first appellate Court relied upon the written statement filed by the first
defendant, observing that the first defendant had admitted the execution of the
sale agreement. On that basis, the first appellate Court granted the relief of
specific performance. Challenging the said reversal findings, the present Second
Appeal has been preferred.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the
plaintiff and the sixth defendant are co-brothers and that, with a view to
grabbing the suit property, they had created an unregistered sale agreement after
coming to know of the settlement deed executed by the father in the year 2009.
He further contended that the suit was instituted in the year 2011 and that,
pursuant to the settlement deed, the second defendant acquired possession of the
property and subsequently settled the same in favour of his son. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
counsel submitted that, owing to a lack of communication with the counsel who
appeared earlier, the appellant was unable to effectively prosecute the matter
before the Courts below. Hence, the appellant sought an opportunity to
substantiate his defence.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said contention,
pointing out that the appellants had not raised any such allegation before the
first appellate Court or initiated any complaint before the Bar Council of India
regarding the alleged lack of communication or professional misconduct on the
part of the earlier counsel. It was therefore contended that such a plea could not
be entertained at this stage of the proceedings.
9. Admittedly, the second defendant filed a written statement disputing
the genuineness of the sale agreement but did not enter the witness box to
substantiate his defence. The first defendant also filed a written statement but
did not adduce oral evidence. Nevertheless, the witnesses were subjected to
cross-examination. The circumstances of the case give rise to a possibility that
the defendants were unable to effectively present their case owing to a lack of
communication with their counsel. It is also relevant to note that the settlement
deed was executed in the year 2009, prior to the institution of the suit in 2011.
These circumstances, together with the defence raised by the defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
disputing the genuineness of the sale agreement, warrant an opportunity for the
parties to establish their respective cases by adducing evidence.
10. Though the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial
Court and granted the relief of specific performance, the genuineness of the sale
agreement and the rival claims of the parties require proper consideration on the
basis of oral and documentary evidence. Besides plaintiff is bound to prove his
case to avail such remedy. In the interests of justice, this Court is of the view
that the parties should be afforded one more opportunity to substantiate their
respective claims and defences. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside
the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and remand the matter to the
trial Court for fresh consideration.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the
litigation has been pending for nearly 15 years and that the plaintiff is presently
aged about 65 years. Considering the prolonged pendency of the litigation and
the need to balance the interests of both parties, this Court is of the view that the
appellants must be directed to pay costs to the plaintiff as a condition for
remand.
12. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
towards costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
13. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The
trial Court shall frame appropriate issues afresh, afford both parties a reasonable
opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, and dispose of the suit
on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall decide the matter
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order or by the findings
rendered by the Courts below.
14. In view of the above directions, the Second Appeal is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
28-10-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
rri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruppur.
2.The Special Court for Trial of Cases
under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )

SA No. 54 of 2026
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rri
SA No. 54 of 2026

28-10-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 01:16:28 pm )