ANTONY Vs. VAREED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are connected appeals and can be disposed of by a common judgment. A.S. No. 780 of 1972 arises from O.S. No. 67 of 1966, Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The said suit was filed for specific performance of a compromise filed in O.P. No. 8 of 1959, a proceeding under Act 31 of 1958. The trial Court decreed the suit, which was confirmed in appeal. Hence this second appeal.

(2.) S.A. No. 731 of 1972 arises from O.S. No. 31 of 1967, filed for recovery of a building with arrears of rent, on the basis of a lease deed dated 15-8-1953. The plaintiff in one suit is the defendant in the other suit. The trial Court decreed the suit for arrears of rent only. There was an appeal and a cross-objection. The appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection was allowed, vacating the decree for arrears of rent. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) It will be useful to state the facts of the case briefly for a proper appreciation of the questions involved in the two appeals. Reference to parties in this Judgment, will be as in O. S. No. 67 of 1966. The suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff (P.W. 1). He executed a document of sale in favour of the defendant (D.W. 1). As per this document, he purported to sell the properties for a sum of Rs. 7,000.00. On the same day, the defendant executed a karar in favour of the plaintiff, by which he undertook to re-convey the properties within six years, in case the amount was paid back. This agreement is Ext. P-1. On the same day, two lease-deeds were executed by the plaintiff regarding the wet land and a building comprised in the properties by which he agreed to pay rent to the defendant.