USHA VENUGOPAL Vs. MARIYAKUTTY JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant as well as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, who were impleaded as additional defendants 3 to 5, in the original suit are in appeal before us.

(2.) THE respondents herein approached the trial court with the original suit for decree of specific performance of Ext. A1, alleging that the same was executed by the defendants in favour of the 1st plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit property to her. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants executed Ext. A1 on 20.11.2004 in favour of the 1st plaintiff with regard to the suit property for a total consideration of 45,00,000/ - after accepting an amount of 10,00,000/ - on the aforesaid day and stipulating that 5,00,000/ - would be paid on 15.12.2004 by the 1st plaintiff out of the sale consideration. A time limit of six months was fixed for executing the sale deed. They further alleged that in March 2005, they were ready to get the sale deed registered in their name after paying the balance sale consideration of 30,00,000/ - and that was informed to the defendants. As they were given to understand that there was likelihood of increasing the stamp duty from 01.04.2005, they sent Exts. A5 and A6 notices demanding execution. However, it did not evoke any positive response. Though they were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, the defendants were evading. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached the trial court.

(3.) THE 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit. It was an unnatural death.