AMBUJAKSHY Vs. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.505 of 2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad is aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit and the decree on the counter claim, confirmed by the Sub Court, Nedumangad in A.S.No.40 of 2009.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the appellant/plaintiff executed sale deed No.1 of 1999 in favour of the 1st respondent (Ext.A1/B1 is a copy of that sale deed). According to the appellant, she had borrowed Rs.25,000.00 from the 1st respondent on 01.01.1999 and as security, executed that assignment deed with an oral understanding that on re-payment of the amount with interest the 1st respondent shall re-convey the property. In spite of the appellant tendering Rs.25,000.00 with interest, the 1st respondent refused to re-convey the property. In spite of execution of the sale deed, the property remained in the possession of the appellant. On 09.09.2007 the respondent trespassed into the property and tried to measure the same. Hence the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement for re-conveyance and other reliefs.

(3.) THE trial court found that the suit is time barred as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, that Ext.A1 is an assignment deed in favour of the 1st respondent, the alleged oral agreement for re-conveyance is not proved and that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The suit was dismissed and based on Ext.C2(a), the counter claim was allowed in part to put up boundary wall on the southern side of the suit property.