KOCHAPPU Vs. SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are from the judgments of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad in O. S. Nos. 288 of 1982 end 225 of 1983. Both the suits relate to 8.97 acres of land owned by Somasundaran Chettiar, who is the sole plaintiff, in O. S. No. 288 of 1982 and sole defendant in O. S. No. 225 of 1983. O. S. No. 225 of 1983 was thereafter filed by Kochappu, the sole defendant in O. S. No. 288 of 1982 against the plaintiff in that case. O. S. No. 288 of 1982 is for injunction. That suit was decreed and the decision was confirmed in appeal. S. A. No. 433 of 1989 by the defendant is against the concurrent injunction decrees. O. S. No. 225 of 1983 is for specific performance of Ext. A1 contract of sale of the suit property in which the plaintiff claimed that he was put in possession by way of part performance. That suit was dismissed and A. S. No. 333 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal.

(2.) In S. A. No. 433 of 1983, no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises. Possession and cause of action for injunction alone are relevant. On the evidence, both the courts found those factual questions in favour of the plaintiff. No interference is required and S. A No. 433 of 1989 has only to be dismissed.

(3.) Ext. A1 agreement is admitted. In O. S. No. 225 of, 1983, on the evidence, the Trial Court found that the defendant was ready and willing to perform the contract and continued to be so, but the contract was broken by the plaintiff. Time was also found to be the essence of contract. These are the aspects arising for consideration in A, S, No. 333 of 1986.