OOMMEN Vs. A. K. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Additional Sub Court, Kottayam has decreed O.S.No.213/2008 on 8/11/2021 on the following terms:

(2.) The above judgment and decree are assailed in the appeal by the defendant mainly on the ground that the evidence on record was not appreciated by the court passed it, in its true spirit and meaning.

(3.) Sri.Biju Abraham the learned counsel, has contended that the defendant had taken a specific contention in the written statement filed in the suit that Ext.A1 agreement for sale on the basis of which the relief of specific performance was sought by the plaintiff was only an agreement fabricated by the plaintiff falsely in a signed stamp paper obtained from him as security while availing Rs.1,50,000.00 for repaying his liability towards a bank. According to him, Ext.A1 as it stands then was entered on 6/9/2007, when the plaintiff insisted that money demanded would be given only if a document styled as an agreement for sale is drafted and handed over. According to him, the context in which Ext.A1 was executed being so, it cannot be said to have entered, intending to be acted upon. According to him execution of Ext.A1 in the nature it stands was not intended and it actually being only a security for the money borrowed from the plaintiff, the relief of specific performance of contract ought not to have been granted by the court below in favour of the plaintiff.