P.V.BABU Vs. ABDULLAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS 51/2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

(2.) The plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of money. The plaint schedule property belonging to defendants 1 and 2 was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,10,000.00 per cent and an agreement for sale in that respect was executed on 24/1/2015. On the date of execution of the sale agreement, a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 was paid to the defendants as advance. Thereafter on 29/5/2015 and on 30/7/2015 another Rs.1,00,000.00 each was paid to the defendants. The period prescribed for the enforcement of the agreement was till 23/12/2015. Later on, by mutual agreement, the period was extended till 23/6/2016. At that time, another Rs.3,00,000.00 was also paid to the defendants and thereby the total amount paid became Rs.25,00,000.00. According to the plaintiff, a further sum of Rs.7,00,000.00 was also given to the defendants for undertaking some work in the said property. However, for the above Rs.7,00,000.00 no receipt was issued by the defendants. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendants had to convince the plaintiff, the defendants' title, the extent of the property and absence of encumbrance before executing the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he received a lawyer's notice dtd. 6/6/2016 issued as per the instructions of one Sathyan, son of Adimakutty stating that there had been a canal through the middle of the plaint schedule property for draining water from the adjacent pond to the paddy field, that the said canal was filled with soil and flow of water was stopped by the defendants. Thereafter, on verification it was found that there was a canal through the middle of the plaint schedule property and also that it was filled with soil by the defendants, clandestinely. According to the plaintiff, the defendants misrepresented to the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property is contiguous. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property and advanced a sum of Rs.32,00,000.00 by believing the representation made by the defendants that the plaint schedule property is lying contiguous. The existence of a canal through the middle of the property has adversely affected its utility and value. After receiving the notice sent by Mr.Sathyan, the plaintiff inspected the property and found that there is an outlet from the plaint schedule property and water was blocked due to obstruction of drain water. When he inquired with the defendants, they demanded the plaintiff to take the property in sale or else, the advance sale consideration will be forfeited. The defendants persuaded the plaintiff to enter into sale agreement fraudulently and suppressing the fact that there was a canal through the middle of the plaint schedule property. If the plaintiff purchases the scheduled property, he may have to be involved in unnecessary litigation. He may also not be able to construct a convention centre in the said property. According to the plaintiff, he has not committed breach of contract and that the defendants with dishonest intention deceived the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking return of Rs.32,00,000.00 paid to the defendants.