V.T SAJU Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 417 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha and the respondents are the defendants in the Original Suit. The suit was filed seeking a decree for return of advance amount. He has also filed I.A. No. 1843 of 2014 to attach the immovable properties specified in the attachment schedule.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that he entered into an agreement with the respondents for sale on 24.09.2013 in respect of 19 cents of property in Sy. No. 24/2A of Kothattukulam Village with a right of way to it for a total sale consideration of Rs. 34,50,000/-. On the date of agreement, he has paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and thereafter Rs. 50,000/- on 03.11.2013. At the first instance, the court below has attached the property as sought for in I.A No. 1843 of 2014. But later, on hearing the respondents, the court below vacated the same finding that the revision petitioner committed breach of contract.

(3.) According to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4, who are having right over the pathway leading to the plaint schedule property, started to demand more amount than they agreed in the contract and that they informed the revision petitioner that they will not execute the sale deed unless he pays an additional amount to the way and therefore, he has demanded to get back the advance sale consideration paid by him. But the court below has found that there was breach of agreement on the part of the revision petitioner and accordingly, lifted the order of attachment effected upon the plaint schedule property. The respondents have produced Ext.B1 agreement and another agreement with another person for purchasing the property. According to the revision petitioner, the order passed by the court below is wrong, perverse and illegal and the legality of Ext.B1 document could only be ascertained after taking evidence. Hence this revision.