CHOYYAN NARAYANI Vs. IBRAHIM KUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a small strip of land described in the plaint schedule as having an extent of 2 cents but actually having an area of 2f cents was decreed by the lower courts and the defendant has come up in appeal. The suit property adjoins a plot of land 12 cents in extent purchased by the respondents' mother Kunhalima from the defendant as per Ext. A1 sale deed dated 26-5-1962. The lower courts accepting the evidence of P. W. 1, the 3rd plaintiff and P. W. 2, an attestor to Ext. A2 receipt, found that the defendant on 13-4-1969 agreed with Kunhalima to sell this strip of land to the latter for Rs. 350/-, that Kunhalima paid Rs. 300/- to the defendant, and that the defendant passed Ext. A2 receipt therefor.

(2.) P. W. 1 swears to these facts and P. W. 2, to the payment of Rs. 300/- and the passing of Ext. A2 receipt. The lower courts believed them, and nothing has been brought to my notice which would go to. show that these witnesses are not worthy of credence. Ext. C1 Commission report and Ext. C2 plan show that a substantial portion of plaintiffs' latrine abuts into the suit property. According to Ext. C1 report 'it is long since the latrine had been constructed' and the defendant's father 'admitted the plaintiffs' possession and use of the latrine'. This fortifies the plaintiffs' case that pursuant to the agreement their mother (she died before the suit was laid) got possession of the suit property. The defendant as D. W. 1 admits that one half of the latrine stands on the suit property. D. W. 2, her husband also admits this. Though both of them, have deposed that they have complained about it before the municipality, there is no evidence of any such complaint.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the lower courts were very much influenced by Ext. A2 receipt, which according to him is a document that requires to be registered and is therefore, inadmissible in evidence. It is pointed out by him that in that document the defendant purports to state that she has sold the 2 cents of land mentioned therein to Kunhalima besides acknowledging receipt of Rs. 300/- out of the price agreed upon and that therefore the same is inadmissible in evidence under S.49(c) of the Registration Act, 1908.