Here's a simple breakdown of a recent court decision where a man tried to change his earlier statements about a property sale, but the court wasn't having it.
In Kallakurichi, a man named N. Kumarasamy agreed to sell property to M. Ramasamy for ₹1,50,000 on March 8, 2001. M. Ramasamy paid ₹1,20,000 upfront. But when he tried to pay the remaining ₹30,000 and finalize the sale, N. Kumarasamy refused. So, M. Ramasamy took the matter to court to make sure the sale happened.
N. Kumarasamy's children, Suganya and Subash, were also involved because they were underage at the time. They later claimed that the property was passed down through the family and they each owned a share, making the sale invalid.
Initially, N. Kumarasamy admitted he was ready to sell. But in 2020 and 2021, he changed his story, saying the agreement was just a cover for a loan of ₹1,00,000. He claimed he was willing to repay the loan instead of selling the property.
"The Sale Agreement was just for a loan transaction," N. Kumarasamy argued.
The court, led by Judge R. Sakthivel, was clear: you can't take back your earlier admissions in court. N. Kumarasamy's attempt to change his statement was seen as an afterthought, especially since he admitted to the original statement during questioning.
On November 28, 2025, the court dismissed N. Kumarasamy's request to change his earlier statement. They found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision, which had already dismissed his application.
"There's no merit in this request," the court concluded.
This decision highlights the importance of being consistent in what you say in court and the difficulties of taking back what you've already admitted.
