BABUKUTTAN NAIR Vs. PARASURAM ALIAS KRISHNA PARASURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, Ext.A1 agreement for sale, dated 22.04.1987, was executed in his favour by the 1 st defendant through his Power of Attorney holder, the 2 nd defendant. Under the agreement, the plaint schedule property is agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for Rs.5,25,000/- within one year from the date of the agreement. Alleging that the defendants committed breach of contract, the suit was filed for refund of the advance sale consideration paid, with interest and costs. Exhibit B1 dated 29.12.1983 is the Power of Attorney executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant on the strength of which Ext.A1 agreement was executed by the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant. According to the 1 st defendant Ext.A1 agreement for sale is a concocted document created by the plaintiff, 2 nd defendant and P.W3, M.Raveendran Nair. PW3 was a trusted friend of the plaintiff and the defendants and they were working together as Engineers in the Kerala State Electricity Board. When the relationship between the 1 st defendant and PW3 became strained, Ext.A1 was fabricated by them, is the allegation. Thus the very genuineness of Ext.A1 is under dispute.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri T.Krishnanunni on behalf of the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Shri N.N.Sugunapalan on behalf of the respondents.