JOHN MATHEW Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 101 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pala. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed between the plaintiff and defendants. The court below declined to exercise its discretion and the alternative prayer for return of money was decreed.

(2.) THE case projected in the court below by the parties to the suit are as given below.

(3.) THE defendants filed written statement saying that they were ready to execute the sale deed and they were present in the Sub Registry office on 21.07.1993, 30.07.1993 and also on 30.04.1994. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had purchased the non judicial stamp papers without the consent or knowledge of the defendants and they were not liable to compensate the plaintiff in that respect. It was also alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by payment of balance consideration and it was he who wanted extension for execution of sale deed. It was alleged that there was an injunction order from the Sub Court, Kottayam, in I.A. No. 2969 of 1992 in O.S. No. 746 of 1992, and that in view of the pendency of that suit the plaintiff requested for extension of time for execution of sale deed upto 30.07.1993. It is also stated that the injunction order was vacated on 10.02.1993, against which C.M. Appl. No. 40 of 1993 was filed before the District Court, Kottayam. The defendants alleged that they had sent a reply notice to the plaintiff informing that they were ready to execute the sale deed on 30.04.1994 and they were present in the Sub Registry office on 30.04.1994 for executing the sale deed, as agreed. They had also signed 3 documents as witnesses on that day, registered in the Sub Registry office. At the same time, the plaintiff did not turn up as agreed and was not ready to get the sale deed executed and hence the advance amount paid to them was forfeited by the wilful default of the plaintiff. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff had sent two mediators to the defendants saying that he will be satisfied with the return of advance money as he could not raise the balance consideration. The defendants resisted the prayer of the plaintiff for return of advance money also.