KUNJUMOL Vs. PONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 256 of 1996, on the files of the Munsiff Court, Punalur.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 256 of 1996 seeking for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement. As per Ext.A1 agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.62,500.00 on 28/3/1985. An advance amount of Rs.20,500.00 was given as a part of initial sale consideration and thereafter, on 22/11/1985, the plaintiff paid another Rs.25,000.00. Consequent to the 2nd tranche of sale consideration being paid, the plaintiff was put in possession of the plaint schedule property by the defendant. It is further alleged that on 10/2/1987, the plaintiff further paid a sum of Rs.14,900.00 to the agent of defendant (PW3). Thereafter, the plaintiff started residing in the property and spent more than Rs.2,00,000.00 for renovation. After receiving the consideration towards the property, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Later, the plaintiff inducted a tenant into the plaint schedule property and shifted her residence to Thiruvananthapuram. After repeated request, the defendant having refused to honour the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff caused to issue a lawyers notice on 19/6/1996 requiring the defendant to perform the contract. On 3/7/1996, a reply notice was issued by the defendant refusing to perform the contract and questioning the validity of Ext. A1 agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking specific performance. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts. A1 to A9 documents were produced. Exts. X1 to X7(a) were the documents produced through a 3rd party (Panchayath) to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The defendants examined DW1 and DW2.

(3.) The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: