P B JEEVAKUMAR Vs. BIJU M JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the owner of the plaint schedule property, is the defendant in O.S. No. 187 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kottarakkara. The respondent is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale and also for injunction.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 06.07.2005, the defendant executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.45,25,000/- and he received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance sale consideration. The period of agreement was one year from the date of agreement. Thereafter, the defendant received Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.07.2005 and Rs.11,00,000/- on 01.12.2005 out of the sale consideration and thus, a total amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was received by him from the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, on 05.07.2006, when the plaintiff demanded to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration, the appellant/defendant, for one reason or other, delayed the matter and he endorsed in the agreement that due to some technical problems, he could not execute the sale deed and extended the period of agreement till 05.11.2006. Thereafter also, the appellant/defendant delayed the matter for no reason and at last, he agreed to execute the sale deed on 27.10.2006 after receiving the balance sale consideration. But he was not prepared to receive the balance sale consideration or to execute the sale deed. When the Mediators intervened, the appellant/defendant told that he has some financial liabilities with respect to the plaint schedule property and he will execute the sale deed on 03.11.2006 after clearing the liability. Again, the appellant/defendant backed out and accordingly, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a lawyer notice on 04.11.2006 calling upon the appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration on 06.11.2006. With the intervention of the Mediators, the appellant/defendant again agreed to execute the sale deed on 04.11.2006. According to the respondent/plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to get the sale deed executed at his expense. But the appellant/defendant has not prepared the same. On 06.11.2006, even though the respondent/plaintiff was present in Punalur Sub Registrar's Office with balance sale consideration, the defendant did not turn up. Hence the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He admitted that the plaint schedule property belonged to the defendant. But, he denied the execution of agreement for sale on 06.07.2005 between him and the respondent/plaintiff. According to him, he has not agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff or anybody else. He has also stated that he had a financial transaction with the father of the plaintiff named Johny. The said Johny was involved in money lending business and in the year 2005, the appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from Johny and as a security, he has given a signed blank paper of Rs.100 and two blank cheques leaves bearing Nos. 785404 and 785814 to Johny. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant continued to repay the loan and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards interest and Rs.1,60,000/- towards principal was repaid. Thereafter, there occurred a delay in paying the balance amount. The respondent/plaintiff told the appellant/defendant that a lawyer notice was issued without any reason and that he will not take any legal steps. So, the appellant did not care to send any reply to the lawyer notice. According to the appellant/defendant, the plaint schedule property is worth more than Rs.1,00,000,00/- and the intention of the respondent/plaintiff is to grab the property from him. The respondent/plaintiff has also filed a criminal case against the appellant.