RAMANKUTTY Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Slapped with a decree for specific performance by the Trial Court and having failed to succeed in the lower Appellate Court, the defendant in OS No. 396/1997 before the Munsiff Court, Ottappalam has come up in appeal. The case had a checkered carrier. It is interesting to note that the parties are siblings. Basis for the suit is Ext. A1 document dated 11/02/1994 an agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby the first party agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,000/- with interest and transfer a property belonging to him in lieu of transfer of a property owned by the defendant in his favour. Ext. A1 agreement is self explanatory. It is unnecessary to refer to it in detail. Suffice to say that on calling upon the defendant to honour the agreement, he failed to do so. Therefore, the suit was laid.

(2.) The suit was resisted on the ground that the contract is unenforceable. It is also contended that there is nothing to show that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is also pointed out that the agreement was inequitable, unfair and provides undue advantage to the plaintiff. On the basis of these contentions, he prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Issues were raised by the Trial Court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A3 from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants examined D.W. 1.