RABANABI Vs. BASHYASAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant No.6, who has questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein, the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of specific performance is decreed by both the Courts by declaring that the oral gift in favour of defendant No.6 is not proved.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance in O.S.No.222/1994. The plaintiff contends that one Fathima, who is the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 6 offered to sale the suit property and accordingly executed an agreement on 30/8/1993 for a sale consideration of Rs.45,000.00 and received advance sale consideration of Rs.14,000.00. The plaintiff also contended that the original owner delivered the possession pursuant to agreement. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the vendor has agreed that she would complete the sale transaction and execute the sale deed whenever the plaintiff called her. The plaintiff further contended that the original vendor Fathima expired on 5/4/1994. It is specifically pleaded that the defendants, who are the daughters of plaintiff's vendor were aware of the sale transaction and therefore, contended that the agreement executed by their mother binds on all the defendants. The plaintiff further pleaded that he made repeated requests to the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.31,000.00 and the entire allegations are attributed against defendant No.6 alleging that defendant No.6 went on postponing and hence the present suit.