LAWS(KER)-2007-9-49

UMMER Vs. KUNHAVA

Decided On September 06, 2007
UMMER Appellant
V/S
KUNHAVA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit was filed by the defendants in OS No. 131 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property was decreed by the Trial Court. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The parties are referred to herein as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of convenience. The plaint schedule property belonging to the defendants having an extent of 2.63 acres is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. The preliminary talk for the sale of the property was held prior to 02/11/1991 and it was decided to finalise the sale when the 1st defendant would come for leave during March 1992. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant came for leave during March 1992 and the agreement was finalised for sale of the property between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- towards advance. It is also alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant on behalf of the defendants, handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants' younger brother Moideen received the balance consideration of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the plaintiff and thus the entire sale consideration was paid to the defendants. Since the defendants had failed to execute the requisite sale document, a lawyer notice was issued on 02/05/1993. The suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, the alleged agreement for sale was totally denied. They have also denied the receipt of the advance amount or the balance sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. The alleged handing over of possession claimed by the plaintiff also was denied. In the light of the contentions raised above, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale.