ALEYAMMA IYPE Vs. KERALA SPINNERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two suits were separately tried and disposed of, and these appeals, which stem from those suits, are considered together, since the subject matter of both the suits is more or less the same. There were two agreements for sale in favour of two different persons. The subject matter of the second agreement is part and parcel of the subject matter of the first agreement. The first suit, O.S. No.100/1993, arose out of the second agreement and the second, O.S. No.256/1996, from the first agreement. The first suit O.S. No.100/1993 was allowed by granting specific performance sought for, which decree is under challenge in A.S. No.628/1997, the appeal first in point of time. Specific performance sought for in the second suit, O.S. No.256/1996, was refused, which decree is under challenge in A.S. No.338/1998, the appeal later in point of time. With this prelude, the facts in the chronological order may be unfurled as follows. Since there are four agreements and two suits, the parties are referred to by their names, for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The original owner, Sudhakaran, was the owner of a large extent of property, of which the subject property involved in both these suits were part and parcel. The South Indian Bank Ltd. obtained a decree in a suit, O.S. No.31/1985 (Ext.A8 in O.S. No.100/1993) against the said Sudhakaran for an amount of Rs.1,41,292.40 together with interest. The decree dtd. 23/9/1986 was charged on 2.34 acres of land belonging to the said Sudhakaran.

(3.) The first agreement