MUKKANI FATHIMA Vs. KUNDU VALAPPIL FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 21-10-2009 in O.S.No. 318/2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery whereby a decree of specific performance of agreement for sale of the plaint A and B schedule properties was granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows: The plaint A schedule property belongs to 1st defendant/1st appellant by virtue of document No.2392/2004 of SRO, Ancharakandy. The plaint B schedule property belongs to the 2nd defendant/2nd appellant who is the husband of the 1st appellant by virtue of document No.1314/2005 of SRO, Ancharakandy. The properties are lying contiguously as one plot. The appellants and the respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the properties on 11.6.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.8000/- per cent. An advance amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid on the very same day. The time fixed for execution of the sale deed was six months. A power of attorney was also executed by the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant in favour of the 1st appellant for execution of the sale deed. Apart from the advance amount the respondent paid an amount of Rs.8000 on 15.9.2007 and Rs.10000/- on 18.12.2007 and thus in total an amount of Rs.93,000/- was paid towards the sale consideration. The time for execution of the sale deed was extended and it expired on 11.1.2008. But, the sale deed was not executed even after the extension of time. Hence, the suit was filed for specific performance. The respondent further alleged that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants/appellants contested the suit admitting the execution of the agreement but denying the receipt of Rs.8,000/- on 15.09.2007 and Rs.10,000/- on 18.12.2007 and also that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

(3.) Before the court below, the power of attorney holder of the respondent was examined as PW1 and the 1st appellant as DW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the respondent. The court below after evaluation of the entire evidence decreed the suit directing the appellants to execute the sale deed after measurement of the properties and register the same in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the appellants have filed this appeal.