OUSEPH VARGHESE Vs. JOSEPH ALEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These connected appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High court of Kerala in Appeal Suit No. 569 of 1963 on its file. Civil appeal No. 1782 of 1966 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit and Civil Appeal no. 1783 of 1966 is filed by the second defendant (who shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendant) , who is contesting this appeal.

(2.) The suit was for specific performance on the basis of an oral agreement alleged to have been entered in on 9/9/1921 (Malayalam Era) between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who died very soon after the filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the second defendant, his widow. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for but in appeal the High court didnot accept the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff but still granted a decree directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties less one acre of paddy field at its east for a sum of Rs. 11,500. 00.

(3.) Originally the plaintiff was the owner of the suit properties. He sold the same to the 1st defendant on 9/9/1921 (Malayalam Era) under exh. P-l. According to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of P-l, there was an oral agreement between him and the 1st defendant where under the 1st defendant agreed to re-convey the properties sold for the very price it was sold whenever the plaintiff calls upon him to recon. vey them. The suit from which these appeals arise has been founded on the basis of the said agreement. The 1st defendant died even before he could file his written statement in the case. Before his death he had gifted the suit properties by means of a registered deed in favour of the defendant. She denied the agreement pleaded in the plaint but on the other hand she stated that just before his death her husband had agreed to sell to plaintiff item No. 1 of the suit property less one acre of paddy field for a sum of Rs. 11,500. 00 but due to the illness other husband the sale in question could not be effected. She proceeded further and averred as follows in Paragraph 10 of her written statement.