R M KRISHNAN Vs. DR AZEEZA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed in both the courts below, the defendant has filed this second appeal for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 24-10-1980, Ex. A-1, with refernce to the immovable property in question. Both the courts below have decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, as prayed for.

(2.) ONLY two submissions were made before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first of the submissions is that though originally the written statement proceeded on the footing that the defendant vendor had the absolute power to alienate the property to any one, the defendant wanted to file I.A. No. 358/93 seeking leave of the lower appellate court, for filing additional statement pleading that he could not convey title to the plaintiff, since the property was assigned to him by the Government on the basis that he was a Harijan and as per the allotment-condition he should not alienate the land to any non-Harijan as the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the said interlocutory application on the ground that the defendant could not take up an entirely different stand in the additional written statement. Learned Counsel submits that the said dismissal is wrong.

(3.) THE next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is as follows: