LAWS(KER)-2016-2-229

SUDHAKSHINA Vs. C.B.THILAKAN

Decided On February 12, 2016
Sudhakshina Appellant
V/S
C.B.Thilakan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1, 4 and 5 in O.S.136/95 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1999, by which, specific performance of Ext.A3 agreement for sale between the first appellant and the first respondent plaintiff was ordered.

(2.) We heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Briefly stated plaint averments are that the plaintiff and the first defendant in the suit are the son and daughter of the second defendant in the suit. Third defendant in the suit is the husband of the first defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are their children. The plaint schedule property was obtained by the first appellant as per partition deed No.3593 dated 8.11.1993, in which, the property in question is included at E schedule. In the document, the second defendant in the suit has been reserved the right to reside in the house and to take income from the property during her life time. On 8.11.1993, defendants 1 and 2 executed Ext.A3 agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property for Rs.1,25,000/ - and an amount of Rs.25,000/ - was also received by the first defendant towards advance. According to the plaintiff, being an employee of KSEB, he availed of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ - from his employer and paid the same to the first defendant on 18.11.1994 and that defendants 1 and 2 issued Ext.A4 receipt acknowledging such payment. On payment of the full sale consideration, the plaintiff and his family started residing in a portion of the building in the plaint schedule property in December, 1994. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and had asked defendants 1 and 2 to execute the same. But the first defendant did not accede to the request, though the second defendant was prepared for the same. In view of the failure on the part of defendants 1 and 2 in executing the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for specific performance of Ext.P3 agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property and to put him in possession of the same.