K.S. SYRIAC Vs. A.M. ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha in O.S.Nos.8 of 1997 and 111 of 1996. In both these appeals, the appellant is one Cyriac, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 1997 and the defendant in O.S.No.111 of 1996. It is seen from the trial court's judgment that O.S.No.111 of 1996 was taken as the leading case and evidence was recorded in that case.

(2.) Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details, bare minimum facts are as follows: O.S.No.111 of 1996 was filed by the respondent in A.S.No.589 of 2001 against the appellant. Ext.A1 agreement to sell property was executed on 27.07.1994 between the appellant and respondent. Total sale consideration was fixed at 3,80,000/-. The respondent had paid an advance of 00,000/- to the appellant and he was put in possession of the property. He would contend that he continues in possession of the land in part performance of the contract. The time fixed initially for performance of the contract was 30.10.1994. Later, time was extended by mutual consent on 28.10.1994 upto 15.12.1994, on 28.12.1995 upto 30.01.1996, on 03.02.1996 upto 31.03.1996 and on 06.04.1996 upto 30.06.1996. Ext.A2 is the notice sent by the respondent to the appellant seeking performance of his objections under the contract. Appellant did not respond to the notice. Hence, O.S.No.111 of 1996 was filed on 17.11.1996 seeking specific performance of the contract.