K.A.MARAPPAN (Died) vs SULOCHANA DEVI

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Second Appeal No.2 of 2023
K.A.Marappan (Died)
1.Masiriammal,
W/o Late K.A.Marappan,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
2.Shanmugasundram,
S/o Late K.A.Marappan,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
3.Selvaraj,
S/o Late K.A.Marappan,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Sulochana Devi,
W/o Raja,
Punchai Puliyampatti,
Nehru Nagar,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
2.Vasudevan,
S/o.Ganapathy,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
3.Kenkeshwari,
W/o Thangavelu,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
4.Jeevarathinam,
W/o Duraisamy,
Kavilipalayam, Kasapa Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
5.R.Sarojini,
W/o Ramamurthy,
Mahadevapuram, Pathrakaliamman Kovil Road,
Metupalayam Town, Metupallayam Taluk.
6.Loka Nayaki,
W/o Rangaraj,
Navayur, Maruthapuram,
Coimbatore North, Coimbatore Taluk.
7.Muruganandam,
S/o Ponnusamy,
Poorani Illam,
Aachi Apartment Raja Street,
Kottaikadu, Kangeyam Road,
Tirupur District. ... Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for dismissal of the decree and judgment dated 28.06.2022
made in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Gobichettipalayam confirming the decree and judgment dated 10.12.2020
made in O.S.No.227 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Sathiyamangalam.
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sathishkumar
For Respondents : R1 & R7 – no appearance
Mr.A.V.Arun – R2 to R6
J U D G M E N T
The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree
passed in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Court,
Gobichettipalayam, confirming the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.227 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Sathiyamangalam.
st
2.The appellants were the plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. The 1
th
respondent was the 5
plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 7 were the
defendants in the suit.
3.One K.A.Marappan filed the suit in O.S.No.227 of 2015 for
specific performance. The said K.A.Marappan died during the pendency
of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as
plaintiffs 2 to 5.
4.The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:
According to the plaintiffs, the deceased plaintiff K.A.Marappan is
the brother of the defendants 1 to 5’s father. The suit property absolutely
belonged to the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants entered into
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
a Sale Agreement in respect of the suit property on 28.02.2005 for a total
Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, the
defendants had received a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- by way of advance and
agreed to receive the balance sum of Rs.18,000/- within a period of four
months and execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In the plaint,
it has been stated that in the case of the defendants not executing the Sale
Deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a suit for specific performance and
in the case of the plaintiff not willing to pay the balance amount within
the stipulated time, the defendants will lose their advance amount.
According to the plaintiffs, they were always ready and willing to
perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs approached the
defendants and requested to execute the registered Sale Deed on various
occasions, but the defendants avoided the same. Thereafter, the plaintiffs
approached the defendants through village elders in the Tamil Month
“Maasi” and the defendants agreed to execute the Sale Deed on
24.06.2008. Inspite of the same, the defendants failed to execute the Sale
Deed. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific
performance.
5.The brief case of the defendants 1 to 4 is as follows:
The defendants 1 to 4, while disputing the averments stated in the
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
plaint, have also stated that the suit property originally belonged to their
father and after his demise, the defendants 1 to 5 and one Muruganandam,
rd
who is the sister's son of the 3
defendant were entitled to the property.
th
The 6
defendant has no right or title over the suit property. The property
th
belonging to the 6
defendant was also included in the Sale Agreement,
st
which was fraudulently executed by the deceased 1
plaintiff. The suit
filed by the plaintiffs without impleading Muruganandam, who has also
got a share in the suit property, is not maintainable. The defendants' father
st
borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the 1
plaintiff K.A.Marappan and
as a security, the defendants were forced to sign blank sheets in the
presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament. They
promised to return the blank sheets after the re-payment of the loan
amount of Rs.30,000/-. The said P.A.Saminathan was instrumental in
executing the fabricated Sale Agreement. The plaintiffs were never ready
and willing to get the sale completed. The property was under-valued in
the suit. The present market value of the property would be more than
Rs.50,00,000/-. In these circumstances, the defendants 1 to 4 prayed for
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
dismissal of the suit.
th
6.The brief case of the 6
defendant is as follows:
th
The 6
defendant, while disputing the averments stated in the
plaint, had also stated that he is not a party to the alleged Sale Agreement
dated 28.02.2005, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot seek any relief as
th
against him. In these circumstances, the 6
defendant prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
rd
7.Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, the 3
plaintiff
was examined as P.W.1 and one Natarajan was examined as P.W.2. On the
side of the plaintiffs, Ex.A1 Sale Agreement dated 28.02.2005 was
th
marked. On the side of the defendants, the 4
defendant was examined as
D.W.1 and 2 documents, Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
8.The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidences let in by the parties, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved
over the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2021 on the
file of the III Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam and the First
Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the concurrent judgments and
decrees of the courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the above appeal.
9. Heard Mr.S.Sathishkumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 to 6.
10.At the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the
following substantial questions of law arose for consideration:
(i)Whether the Lower Appellate Court has properly
appreciated the provisions of Section 101 to 103 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, particularly, when the defendant has
admitted the signature in the Agreement?
(ii)Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in
holding that the Sale Agreement has to be proved by the
plaintiff after the admission of the defendant in his written
statement that the signature was obtained by the plaintiff in
blank papers and it was converted as Agreement in Ex.A1?
11.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record
and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could
be seen that the plaintiffs filed the suit based on Ex.A1 Sale Agreement
alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the
st
deceased 1
plaintiff K.A.Marappan, who died during the pendency of the
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to
5. There is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the respondents 2
to 7. The said K.A.Marappan is the brother of the respondents 2 to 6's
father. P.W.2 was said to be the attestor of Ex.A1 Sale Agreement. The
defendants vehemently contended that Ex.A1 document is a fabricated
document. They contended that the respondents' father borrowed a sum of
Rs.30,000/- from K.A.Marappan and they were forced to sign in the
blank papers by the mediator P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of
Parliament. The respondents 2 to 6 have also contended that in the blank
papers obtained from them, the said K.A.Marappan, with the assistance of
P.A.Saminathan, fabricated Ex.A1 Sale Agreement and filed the suit for
specific performance. Further, the respondents 2 to 6 contended that
th
though the 7
respondent, who has got a share in the suit property has not
signed Ex.A1 document, his share was also included in the suit.
12.With regard to the panchayat held in the presence of
P.A.Saminathan, though P.W.1 disputed the panchayat, P.W.2, the attestor
admitted that there was panchayat in the presence of P.A.Saminathan.
When the respondents 2 to 6 have vehemently disputed the execution of
Ex.A1 Sale Agreement, the burden of proof lies very much on the
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
plaintiffs to establish the execution of the document.
13.On a reading of the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clear that
Ex.A1 document was prepared by utilizing the signed blank sheets
obtained by K.A.Marappan in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then
Member of Parliament. The respondents 2 to 6 have categorically stated
st
that the deceased 1
plaintiff obtained their signatures in the blank sheets
in the presence of P.A.Saminathan, the then Member of Parliament and
utilized the same for fabricating Ex.A1 Sale Agreement. The conflicting
statements made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported the case of the
respondents 2 to 6 and not the plaintiff’s case.
14.With regard to readiness and willingness, it is pertinent to note
that inspite of the alleged payment of Rs.1,12,000/-, the appellants not
even issued a single notice to the respondents for getting the Sale Deed
executed. Except stating that the appellants were always ready and
willing to perform their part of the contract in the plaint, they have not
established the said contention by any acceptable evidence. For getting a
decree for specific performance, the plaintiff should always be ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
execution of the Sale Agreement. In the absence of any evidence to
establish that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of
the contract, a decree for specific performance cannot be granted.
15.It is also pertinent to note that though Ex.A1 alleged Sale
Agreement was said to have been executed on 28.02.2005 and that the
st
deceased 1
plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- out of the total Sale
Consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-, he chose to file the suit only on
30.06.2008. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants' case was that
four months time was granted for the execution of the Sale Deed and for
making the paltry payment of Rs.18,000/-. It only proves the suspicion
with regard to the execution of the Sale Agreement. In these
circumstances, the alleged Sale Agreement marked as Ex.A1 is not a true
and genuine document. That apart, the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove
the mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness by adducing oral
and documentary evidences. In these circumstances, the Courts below
have rightly dismissed the suit.
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
16.I do not find any ground much less any substantial question of
law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The
Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
17.Since I have dismissed the above Second Appeal, the appellants/
st
th
plaintiff 2 to 4 and the 1
respondent/5
plaintiff are directed to refund the
sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the respondents 2 to 6, together with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from 28.02.2005 till the date of actual
payment within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. No costs.
pbl
21.01.2026
Index: Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.The III Additional District Court,
Gobichettipalayam.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Sathiyamangalam.
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
Second Appeal No.2 of 2023
21.01.2026
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
S.A.No. 2 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
This matter was taken up for hearing under the caption “For Being
Mentioned” today at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that this Court
by judgment dated 21.01.2026 dismissed the above Second Appeal.
However, he would submit that in para 17, instead of mentioning that the
respondents 2 to 6 are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the
st th
appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 1 respondent/ 5 plaintiff, it was
st th
mentioned as “the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the 1 respondent/ 5
plaintiff are directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,000/- to the
respondents 2 to 6”. Hence, he prayed to amend the same and requested
to issue fresh order copy.
3. Considering his submissions, Registry is directed to substitute
para 17 as follows :-

“17. Since I have dismissed the above Second Appeal, the
respondents 2 to 7/defendants are directed to refund the sum of
st th
Rs.1,12,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 1 respondent/5
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
28.02.2005 till the date of actual payment within a period of twelve
(12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. No
costs.”
5 . Registry is directed to incorporate above correction in the
Judgment of this Court in S.A.No.2 of 2023 dated 21.01.2026 and issue
fresh order copy to the appellant.
26.10.2026
rpp
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

S.A.No. 2 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
S.A. No.2 of 2023
26.10.2026
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )