RAMAN Vs. SETHUMADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions are preferred by the appellant, in A.S. Nos. 254 of 1999 and 238 of 1999 seeking review of the judgment dated 20.10.2011 in the said appeals.

(2.) The respondent filed O.S. No. 150 of 1993 in the Sub Court, Palakkad for a decree for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale and produced original documents of title of the petitioner. He alternatively prayed for recovery of advance money and damages. Petitioner filed O.S No. 430 of 1993 in the same court for a decree directing the respondent to return those documents of title and claiming damages.

(3.) The issue involved in the suits were whether there was any oral agreement for sale as pleaded by the respondent or whether the documents of title happened to be in the custody of the respondent in the way suggested by the petitioner. Trial court found in favour of existence of oral agreement for sale pleaded by the respondent. O.S. No. 150 of 1993 was decreed directing petitioner to execute a sale deed on receipt of the agreed sale consideration less the advance amount paid. O.S. No. 430 of 1993 was dismissed.