NEELAKANTAN VELU Vs. GHEERVARGHESE KORUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O. S. No. 925 of 1118, District Munsiffs Court, Quilon, is the appellant in the second appeal and also the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The first defendant appears to have executed an agreement to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement is evidenced by a document dated 10-3-1118. The sale consideration was fixed in the sum of Rs. 1200 and Rs. 200 was paid as advance on the date of the agreement and the balance sum of Rs. 1000/- was to be paid on or before 10-9-1118 when the document of sale is to be executed by the defendant. As, according to the plaintiff, the first defendant did not execute the conveyance in his favour, he instituted O. S. No. 925 of 1188 in the court of the District Munsiff of Quilon for specific performance of the agreement dated 10-3-1118 and the plaintiff also deposited in court the sum of Rs. 1000/- being the balance consideration payable for the sale. There was a decree for specific performance passed by the Trial Court. The matter was taken up in appeal and the then. Travancore High Court by its decree dated 6-3-1124 confirmed the decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. After the other formalities for having a conveyance executed were gone through, ultimately on 24-2-1925 the Trial Court executed the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) In pursuance of the conveyance executed by the court in favour of the plaintiff the plaintiff also appears to have obtained delivery of most of the items comprised in the sale deed.

(3.) After the coming into force of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act - Act XXXI of 1958 - the first defendant filed on 24-3-1959, C.M.P. No. 3905 of 59 under the provisions of sub-s.(3) of S.9 of the said Act. The allegations were that the document of sale of the immovable property in favour of the plaintiff is really a transaction of a debt and that he is entitled to reopen the same and claim the necessary relief afforded to persons like him under the provisions of the said Act. The application was naturally opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the provisions of the said Act and in particular the provisions of S.9, sub-s.(3) under which relief was claimed did not apply to a transaction like this. The main contention was that the document of sale executed in his favour is really in pursuance of a decree passed by the court and S.9 does not contemplate the reopening of decrees. Objection was also taken that the first defendant is not an agriculturist and that he cannot be considered to be a party to the sale deed executed by the court in favour of the plaintiff. The obstructive tactics of the first defendant and the several attempts made by him to defeat the rights of the plaintiff were also mentioned in the objections raised on behalf of the plaintiff.