ILLICKAL JOSEH Vs. CHOLAPPURATH VRINDADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 46 of 1999 except defendants 3, 5, 6, 8 and 17 on the file of the Sub Court, Vadakara are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 as plaintiffs for realisation of money.

(2.) The plaint schedule properties, 21 items, having an extent of 29 acres belonged to the defendants and they had agreed to sell the properties to the predecessor of the plaintiffs, late Sahadevan, for a consideration of Rs. 46,00,000/-. The terms and conditions agreed between the parties had been reduced into a written agreement for sale executed on 11-1-1994 and an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was given as advance towards sale consideration on the date of agreement itself. Subsequent payments were also made and altogether an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- was given towards sale consideration. As per the agreement, the sale deed is to be executed on or before 30-6-1994 after measuring the properties and verifying the extent of the same. One of the terms of the agreement was that the defendants had to satisfy late Sahadevan the title of the properties by showing the original documents and also that the properties are free from encumbrance. The predecessor of the plaintiffs died on 29-9-1995. According to the plaintiffs, completion of the transaction was delayed by the defendants deliberately under one pretext or other during the lifetime of late Sahadevan and that after his death, though they persuaded the defendants to execute the sale deed, there was no positive response. It is contended by the plaintiffs that since the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract, they were constrained to rescind the contract and, therefore, entitled to get back the amount paid towards purchase price.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 17,50,000/- from the predecessor of the plaintiffs are admitted. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs and deceased Sahadevan are responsible for not carrying out the terms of the contract and that the defendants were in fact ready and willing to hand over the original title deeds and other documents and to execute the sale deed as agreed. The defendants contended that the transaction was postponed as the plaintiffs were not ready with the balance sale consideration.