LALITHAMBIKA Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property with its adjacent land belonged to the defendant. She executed an agreement on 20.4.1993 for sale of 20 cents for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid as advance. The sale was to be executed on or before 14.5.1993 after receiving the balance consideration. The title deed of the property, tax receipt and encumbrance certificate were also handed over to the plaintiff. Possession was also given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed. Since the defendant was not ready to execute the sale deed, a letter was sent by registered post and no reply was sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff went to the Sub Registry Office on 14.5.1993 for paying the balance consideration. But the defendant did not turn up. On these averments, the suit was filed.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, the execution of the agreement is admitted. According to the defendant, it was intended only as a security for the loan of Rs. 50,000/- received on 2.4.1993 on the strength of a promissory note for Rs. 50,000/-and a cheque for Rs.50,000/- issued to the plaintiff on the same day. The plaintiff also pressed for execution of a karar as security for the loan. The agreement was executed in the presence of mediators on 20.4.1993. There was no demarcation or measurement of the property and possession was not given to the plaintiff. The property is lying as a contiguous plot with the admitted property in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance. The notice alleged to have been sent on 8.5.1993 was not received by the defendant.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the following issues: