ANITHA Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioner is the first respondent in RFA No.689/2014 preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.343/2012 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karunagappally. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for specific performance pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 20.6.2006 executed by the first respondent/first defendant. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court.

(2.) Challenging the said judgment and decree the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by this court by a judgment dated 5.3.2019 and a decree for specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows "22. In the result, the judgment and decree under challenge are set aside and a decree for specific performance is granted as follows. The 1st defendant has to execute the sale deed for her half right over the entire property as the owner of the property as well the 1/3rd right (in total 4/6 shares) inherited by her as the legal heir of her deceased husband in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The balance sale consideration will be paid within four months from today to the 1 st respondent. If the 1st respondent fails to execute the sale deed, such amount will be deposited in the trial court which will ensure the execution of the sale deed as per this judgment and decree."

(3.) The review petitioner contended that Ext.A1, the sale agreement was not supported by consideration and also that it was not valid as far as Rajendra Prasad was concerned. But that aspect was not accepted by the court while passing the impugned judgment and hence, the judgment has to be reviewed holding that Ext.A1 is an inseparable document not capable of enforcement in part.