THENGAPATTANAM EDUCATIONAL AND SERVICE TRUST Vs. KOSE MOHUMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari, dtd. 14/3/2019, made in O.S.No.154 of 2010.

(2.) The Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. He has filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement, dtd. 4/3/2010, executed by him in favour of the first defendant herein. The case of the plaintiff is that on 4/3/2010, the first defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff, in respect of his 53 cents of lands in Survey No.486/1, Painkulam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, at the rate of Rs.40,000.00 per cent; on the date of sale agreement itself, the plaintiff paid an earnest amount of Rs.25,000.00 and it was agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration should be paid within a period of four months; on 7/4/2010, at the instance of the first defendant, his wife Zeenath Beevi sent a legal notice, stating that a portion of the said property belonged to her and she had not agreed to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff and she did not sign the agreement also; the plaintiff sent a reply notice to Zeenath Beevi, dtd. 12/5/2010; the plaintiff also sent a suit notice to the first defendant and called upon him to execute the sale deed, in respect of 41 cents, in the said suit survey Number, in accordance with the sale agreement, dtd. 4/3/2010; on receipt of the said notice, the first defendant sent a reply notice, dtd. 25/10/2010 with false and frivolous allegations; later, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant has got a saleable interest only in respect of 36 cents alone; hence in the suit schedule properties, the extent of lands is shown as 36 cents; the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration to the first defendant; despite the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed in his favour; on 16/9/2010, he executed the fraudulent sale deed in favour of the second defendant, in order to defraud the interest of the plaintiff; the second defendant is none other than the cousin brother of the first defendant and he is not a bonafide purchaser for a valuable sale consideration; the second defendant is also added as a party to the suit in order to get effective decree for specific performance; since the first defendant failed to execute the sale agreement as agreed by colluding with the second defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance.

(3.) .The first defendant contested the suit by alleging that the intention for executing the sale agreement is not true; on 30/3/2010, the plaintiff along with some rowdy elements caught hold of the first defendant and obtained his signatures in stamp papers and blank white papers; by making use of the signed papers so obtained from the first defendant, the plaintiff created the sale agreement; on 7/4/2010, the first defendant's wife sent a legal notice, because she has an extent of 36 cents in Survey No.486/1; thereafter, the plaintiff had sent notice to the first defendant and his wife with false and frivolous allegations. So, the suit has to be dismissed.