MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI Vs. SAKEENA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff's suit for specific performance of agreement for sale or for return of advance amount of Rs.24,54,345/- in the alternative in O.S.No.862/2013 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The plaintiff challenges the judgment and decree in appeal.

(2.) Plaint schedule property is 1/11 share out of 3 acres of land and a School building and movables therein belonging to the respondent/ defendant. The property originally belonged to her father, Seethi Thangal. He was the Manager of the aided School being run in the entire property. After his death on 22.8.2002, the property devolved on the respondent and eight siblings. The legal heirs of Sri.Seethi Haji authorised their eldest brother Muhammed Rafi Thangal to take over management of the School and represent them in all matters of administration by executing in his name unregistered Ext.A4 unregistered power of attorney dated 3.9.2002. Sri.Seethi Thangal had incurred liabilities in connection with administration of the School affairs and therefore all the legal heirs including the respondent decided to sell the entire property with School building to the appellant. Ext.A1 sale agreement was entered into on 14.5.2007 between the sharers who included the respondent as first party and the appellant/ plaintiff as second party.

(3.) The property was agreed to be sold for a total value of Rs.2,70,00,000/- and sale deed was to be executed within 11 months. All the parties agreed to the proposal and an advance amount of Rs.25 lakhs was received on 14.5.2007. The respondent admits that she received 1/11 share out of the advance amount paid on the day. The balance amount was agreed to be paid before the expiry of 11 months and it was further stipulated that Rs.75 lakhs would be paid within one month of the agreement. The default clause provided that in case the appellant failed to pay the balance amount as agreed, his right to get the advance amount back would stand forfeited. It was also provided that if the first party failed to perform their part of the contract, the appellant will be entitled to sue for specific performance of contract of sale.