(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order and docket order dated 12.11.2025 made in I.A.S.F.R.No.4961 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the docket order dated 12.11.2025 made in I.A.S.F.R.No.4961 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed an application for review under Section 114 of CPC r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2025, by amending the alternate relief granted in the suit, by creating a charge on the suit property as contemplated under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.67 of 2024 for specific performance of an agreement of sale, with an alternate relief of refund of advance amount. The trial Court declined to grant the relief of specific performance, but however, proceeded to grant a decree for refund of sum of Rs.73,48,163/-, together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.70,00,000/-, within a period of four months. The trial Court has specifically given a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for a charge over the suit property with regard to the alternate relief granted to the plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, the revision petitioner has a statutory charge over the property, in respect of which, there was an agreement of sale. He would therefore state that the trial Court, in the first place, ought not to have specifically given a finding that there would be no charge over the suit property, insofar as the alternate relief is concerned. Even otherwise, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has not given even a single reason as to why the plaintiff/revision petitioner is not entitled to a charge over the suit property in respect of the refund of advance amount.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further take me through the plaint averments, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. To fortify his submissions that the review application should not have been returned and in fact, should have been entertained and allowed, as the petitioner is entitled to a statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of Transfer of Property Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Buvaneswari Vs. Muthusamy and others, in A.S.No.101 of 2001 dated 25.09.2014 and K.Savithiri and another Vs. L.Ramasamy and others, reported in 2017 (3) CTC 812.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In view of the limited relief sought for in the revision, namely to set aside the docket order dated 12.11.2025, refusing to entertain the review application at the numbering stage itself, I am inclined to dispense with notice to the respondents.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.1,47,00,000/-. The trial Court, finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance, has proceeded to grant the alternate relief and directed to return of Rs.73,48,163/-, together with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.70,00,000/-. However, the trial Court has specifically stated that towards the said alternate relief, the plaintiff is not entitled for a charge over the suit property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no reasons have been assigned by the trial Court as to why such a finding has been rendered in the first place. I find from the judgment that the trial Court has found that towards part sale consideration, Rs.70,00,000/-, has already been paid by the plaintiff.

10. Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

                   “55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller:

                   (b) to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller's possession or power;”

11. This Court, in Buvaneswari's case, cited supra, while granting the alternate relief for specific performance, held that a charge is created in respect of the amount to be repaid by the defendant, within a particular period of time, six months in that case.

12. In K.Savithiri's case, cited supra, this Court held that for the money paid by the buyer, before title passes, the Section creates a statutory charge in favour of the purchaser. The statutory charge would arise when the buyer shows that he has not improperly declined to accept delivery of property or he properly declined to accept delivery and in all other circumstances, the statutory charge would be available to the purchaser. As seen from the provision itself, a charge is created the moment the money is paid by the buyer, before the title passes to him. It can be lost only by the purchaser's default alone. The scenario set out in Section 55(6)(b) of the Act, where the buyer loses the charge is only when he improperly declines to accept delivery of the property or when he properly declines to accept the delivery. These situations have to be tested by the trial Court.

13. As already discussed, while granting the alternate relief, the trial Court has not even assigned reasons as to why the plaintiff is not entitled to a charge. There must have been a specific finding based on a discussion that the plaintiff has lost the statutory charge which is automatically available to him under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, the moment the advance sale consideration is paid. In the light of the above, the trial Court clearly fell in error in not entertaining the review application.

14. Though elaborate reasons have been given by the trial Court, which are not touching or complying with the mandate of Section 55(6)(b) of the Act, they are pertaining only to misdescription of the property, which in my considered opinion, does not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking review. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the revision, by setting aside the docket order dated 12.11.2025 made in I.A.S.F.R.No.4961 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam. The trial Court is directed to number the review application, if it is otherwise in order and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the revision petitioner as well as the defendants. Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner, across getting an acknowledgement, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to enable the revision petitioner to represent the same before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.