A. Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 16(c)—Readiness and Willingness—Burden lies on plaintiff to demonstrate their preparedness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, even if the defendant has not specifically contested this aspect. (See Para 23) B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 96 & Order XLI Rule 1—Appeals—The appellate court holds the authority to overturn or modify decrees passed by the trial court. (Referenced in Paras 1, 8, 26) C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Doctrine of Lis Pendens—A sale deed executed while litigation is ongoing—Purchaser identified as a pendente lite buyer—(Discussed in Paras 10, 24) D. Evidence Act, 1872—Burden of Proof—Plaintiff must establish that the seller, being advanced in age, was of sound mind at the ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 41 Rule 1—The defendants challenged the trial court’s judgment granting the plaintiff, Athayammal, a 2/3rd share in the suit property (17.62 acres in R.S.No.221/2, Chennampatti Village)—The plaintiff traced her title through registered settlement deeds (Ex.A1 to Ex.A3) from her mother Pavayammal, who in turn derived title from her sons, including Chinna Rasianna Gounder—The defendants contested her claim, asserting that the property devolved from Marappa Gounder, the original Kartha, and that Pavayammal had no legal right—They further argued non-joinder of Kanayal, alleged widow of Chinna Rasianna, and sought partition based on notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act—The High Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the final de...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 96—The appellant/defendant challenged the decree passed in O.S.No.246 of 2017 by the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, directing him to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff within two months—The respondent, claiming title under a registered sale deed (Ex.A-3) from Rajalakshmi, who had acquired it via settlement from her mother, Samathal, sued for possession—The appellant resisted based on long possession under an alleged oral lease from his mother—The earlier suits (O.S.Nos.222 & 223 of 2007) filed by the respondent were dismissed, leaving title open for adjudication—The appellant never challenged the title documents (Ex.A-2 & Ex.A-3) and admitted the respondent's title during earlier litigat...

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  Section 13 B—Mutual consent divorce—Cooling period, Family court refused to exempt—Impugned in Revision petition—Hon’ble Supreme Court, having held that six months cooling period is only directory and not mandatory, the Courts have to necessarily taking into account various factors to decide whether the cooling period of six months can be waived—The Court ought to have noticed that no useful purpose would be served by requiring the parites to sit through the cooling period of six months—In fact, the Court failed to see that it would onlyprolong their agony—Therefore, in view of the above, I direct the Sub Court, Poonamallee to advance the hearing of HMOP No.213 of 2025 to any date in July 2025 and take up Section 13B Petiiton and pass orders on merits and in ac...

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  Section 13 B—Mutual consent divorce—Cooling period, Family court refused to exempt—Impugned in Revision petition—Hon’ble Supreme Court, having held that six months cooling period is only directory and not mandatory, the Courts have to necessarily taking into account various factors to decide whether the cooling period of six months can be waived—The Court ought to have noticed that no useful purpose would be served by requiring the parites to sit through the cooling period of six months—In fact, the Court failed to see that it would onlyprolong their agony—Therefore, in view of the above, I direct the Sub Court, Poonamallee to advance the hearing of HMOP No.213 of 2025 to any date in July 2025 and take up Section 13B Petiiton and pass orders on merits and in ac...

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 27—Return of Property—Maintainability of Interlocutory Application—Scope and Limitation—Interim Orders—Family Court Jurisdiction—Revision Allowed—In this case, the petitioner/husband challenged the order passed the Family Court, Erode, which directed him to return jewellery and Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent/wife—The core issue was whether an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking return of property, can be entertained as an interlocutory application before disposal of the main matrimonial petition—Relying on A—Prabha v. A—Parselvan, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 13129, the High Court reiterated that Section 27 applications are maintainable only at the time of final adjudication and not independently—Accord...

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 — Presumption as to consideration — Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money based on two promissory notes — Defendant admitted execution of promissory notes but alleged they were issued under different circumstances and not supported by consideration — Held, once execution of promissory notes is admitted, presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies — Legal presumption exists that promissory notes were executed for valid consideration — Onus shifts to the defendant to rebut such presumption by cogent and convincing evidence — Mere denial or vague explanation insufficient — Defendant failed to discharge burden of rebuttal — No material produced to negate consideration — Plaintiff entitled to decree of r...

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006—Section 3—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 12(1)(c)—Annulment of Marriage—Child Marriage—Consent—Quashment—Civil Revision—Memo for Annulment—In a Civil Revision Petition seeking to strike off H.M.O.P. No. 316 of 2024 pending before the Family Court, Trichy, the petitioner contended that the marriage was solemnized when he and the respondent were minors—The Court, noting the petitioner’s willingness to annul the marriage and past quashment of related criminal proceedings, granted liberty to file a memo for annulment—The Family Court was directed to dispose of the petition within 3 months. (Para 4, 5) ...

Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 19(b)—This case delves into the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, concerning readiness and willingness in specific performance suits, as well as the rights of pendente lite purchasers—The plaintiff must prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract throughout the proceedings under Section 16(c)—A pendente lite purchaser has the right to raise defenses available to the original vendor, including the plaintiff’s lack of readiness and willingness—A suit dismissed for default but later restored is considered to be live from the date of the restoration application, making any purchase during this period a pendente lite purchase—Such a purchaser, however, cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under Section 19(b) of the Spe...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Second Appeal—Property Law—This case addresses critical issues under Civil Procedure Code and Property Law, focusing on the burden of proof in oral partition cases, co-ownership, and the effect of property subdivisions—It is held that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving an alleged oral partition, and mere absence of evidence, such as recitals in sale deeds, may indicate no partition took place—In the absence of proof of an oral partition, co-owners are presumed to hold equal shares, and a sale by one co-owner of an undivided share does not suggest an unequal partition—Subdivisions made under schemes like the UDR (Update and Re-survey) Scheme do not alter title or possession unless established by proper evidence or court order—A Tahsildar cannot ef...