RAJAN Vs. YUNUSKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. 87 / 84 have filed A.S. 535/1990 and defendants 4 to 6 have filed A.S. No. 346/1990. The Trial Court decree the suit for specific performance with mesne profits and subject to for payment of amounts due to her life interest.

(2.) The plaintiff allegations are as follows: The plaint schedule property belongs to . defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff and first defendant had negotiated for sale of the same and for that purpose the plaintiff along With Ramachandran Pillai and Razak Kunju Musaliar went to the residence of defendants at Kalamassery on 9-11 - 1984. The first defendant represented that he is the power of attorney holder of defendants 2 and 3 and was entitled to negotiate and execute sale deed for and on their behalf. Draft copy of power of attorney was shown to the plaintiff. The first defendant in the presence of defendants 2 and 3 agreed to sell the plaint schedule property at a sale price of Rs. 1,100/- per cent and received Rs. 5,000/- as advance and agreed to sell the property on or before 20-12-1984 after receipt of balance sale consideration. An attested copy of the partition deed and draft copy of the Mukthyar were given to the plaintiff. The first defendant wrote on a sheet of paper his address and noted the amount of consideration received by him on that date. The piece of paper was given to the plaintiff along with the other two documents. When the plaintiff went to the house of 1st defendant with the balance consideration on 11-12-1984 defendants 1 and 2 demanded higher prepared to accept the sale consideration for specific performance with a claim for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. It is also stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement with the following averments. All the averments in the plaint are denied. The Varadan Pillai, father of defendants 1 and 3 Lekshmikutty Amma and the defendants. The property was in the possession of the second defedant under an otti assignment. The case of negotiation for sale and that the plaintiff went to the house of defendants 1 to 3 on 9-11-1984 with Ramachandran Pillai and Abdul Razak Kunju are false. The allegation that he agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,100/-per cent and that he received Rs. 5,000/-as advance and gave it to the second defendant are also false. The first defendant did not give any attested copy of the partition deed or draft copy of the Mukthiar as alleged in the plaint. The allegation that he wrote on a sheet of paper his address and the amount received is also false. The further allegation that the plaintiff went to the house of first defendant on 11-12-84 with