PUTHIYA PURAYIL RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. PULLANI PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) The suit property belonged to the defendant. On 7-2-2005, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of advance sale consideration. Ext. A1 is the agreement for sale executed between the parties on 7-2-2005. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not conveyed the property as per the terms of Ext. A1 agreement and hence the suit for realisation of the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property. Among others, the defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court found that since the defendant has no case that the plaintiff has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property as per the terms of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the advance sale consideration charged on the suit property, as provided for under S. 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court also found that since the plaintiff is seeking to enforce payment of money charged on the suit property, the suit is governed by Art. 62 of the schedule to the Limitation Act and the suit instituted within twelve years from the date of agreement is within time. Consequent on the said findings, the trial Court passed a decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the decision of the trial Court in appeal. The appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial Court. The defendant who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in this second appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondent.