RAKKINI ALIAS MUNIYAMMAL Vs. RITHA VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Ritha Vincent is the appellant in S.A.No.1450 of 1993. THE second defendant Rakkini @ Muniammal is the appellant in S.A.No.1511 of 1992. For convenience the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case in short is that she entered into an agreement for sale with the first defendant on 23.12.1981. THE total sale consideration is Rs.30,000/=. Between 23.12.1981 and 16.9.1982, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,000/= to the defendant. Suit is for specific performance on the basis of the unregistered sale agreement or in the alternative, payment of the sum of RS.15,000/= with 24% interest. According to the plaintiff she paid an advance of Rs.500 to the first defendant. THE suit property measures an extent of 4 Kuzhies and 3 Veesams (2,376 sq.ft.,). After receipt of the part of sale consideration, the first defendant was not willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for specific performance directing the first defendant to receive the balance sale consideration Rs.15,000/= and to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property or in the alternative to refund the advance amount with 24% interest as stated earlier.

(3.) ON the above pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel appeared on either side and on a perusal of the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial court framed as many as three issues for consideration and held that the second defendant is a necessary party to the suit, that in the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant, namely Ex.B.7, the entire share of the branch of Kokkili is also included. Thus the trial court set aside Ex.B.7 sale deed holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement as prayed for. ON appeal preferred by the defendants, the first appellate court modified the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that the first defendant is entitled to one half share in the property and ordered specific performance of the one half share. As against the same, the plaintiff as well as the defendants have preferred these Second Appeals.