SAROJAM K. Vs. SREEKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara in O.S. No. 403/2007 followed by those of the Additional District Court - III, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No. 97/2015, defendants 2 to 4 have come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The suit is one for specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement for sale. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.7,000.00 per cent and accepted an amount of Rs.5,000.00 as part of consideration from the plaintiff on 08/11/2005 by executing Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed was agreed to be executed within six months from the date of agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property was a water logged area, and the plaintiff reclaimed the said wet land by dumping about 50 loads of soil in it on 09/12/2006 by spending an amount of Rs.15,000.00, after the execution of Ext.A1. Even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by paying the balance consideration, her request and demands fell in deaf ears and consequently she caused to issue Ext.A4(b) lawyer's notice dated 04/04/2007 to the defendants thereby calling upon them to execute the sale deed. The lawyer's notice also did not evoke any response, and hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contended that the signature in Ext.A1 were not affixed by them; whereas, the signatures were forged. It is contended that on 08/06/2005 there was an agreement executed by them in favour of the plaintiff thereby agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.10,000.00 per cent. The plaintiff thereafter withdrew from the said agreement on the ground that the property to be sold was a reclaimed paddy field. No soil was dumped by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.