RAGHUNATHAN NAIR Vs. BOBBY A. THOMAS & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/10/2018 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chengannoor in O.S.No.37 of 2012. The plaintiff who lost his case in the Court below, has preferred this appeal under Sec. 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C').

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the original suit seeking specific performance of a contract in respect of the plaint schedule property.

(3.) Defendant No.2 is the mother of defendants 1 and 3. They are the owners of the plaint schedule property. On 7/6/2010, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.50.00 lakhs. The agreement for sale was executed by defendants 1 and 2 with the knowledge and concurrence of defendant No.3, who was then working abroad. The time for performance was fixed as 11 months. Defendants 1 and 2 received Rs.10.00 lakhs as advance on the date of the agreement, and thereafter, they received amounts on different dates totalling a sum of Rs.31.00 lakhs. The date of performance of the agreement was extended to 30/11/2011. Subsequently, on 3/8/2010, defendants 1 and 2 received Rs.3.00 lakhs more from the plaintiff and executed a document acknowledging the receipt of the amount. Thereafter, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed, in spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff. The defendants instituted O.S.No.308 of 2011 and obtained an interim injunction to restrain the plaintiff from entering into the plaint schedule property. Even after that, the defendants sought time for performing the agreement for sale. But at the same time, they tried to sell off the properties to third parties, against which the plaintiff filed a suit to restrain them from alienating the property to others in violation of the agreement for sale. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff intimated his readiness and willingness to the defendants, but they refused to perform their part of the contract. Hence the plaintiff instituted the original suit seeking specific performance of the contract.