Second Appeal dismissed. The court upheld lower courts' finding that an agreement for sale was not duly executed, noting discrepancies in witness evidence and conflicting expert opinion, concluding inheritance was more probable than purchase.
The appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/4TH ASHADHA 1934
RSA.No. 800 of 2012 ()
AS.84/2010 of III ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.457/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
SURESH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.LATE KUNJUKRISHNAN ACHARY (GOVERNMENT SERVANT) THARAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, PUNUKKANNOORCHERRY, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.BENNY GERVACIS SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 & ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 4 TO 9:
KUNJUKRISHNAN ACHARY (DIED),
VIDHYA SADANAM, KARINALLOOR, PUTHENKULAM-691 003.
SANTHOSH BHAVAN, PUNUKKANNOOR, PERUMPUZHA-691 504.
MOHANA MANDIRAM, MULAVANA, CHOKANKUZHI-691 005.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------R.S.A. No.800 of 2012
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Against concurrent verdict of the courts below, appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.
1,00,000/- and received 65,000/- by way of advance. The sale deed was to be executed on 20.06.2000. On 15.04.2000 appellant issued notice to the deceased 1st defendant demanding specific performance of the agreement for sale. That was replied as per notice dated 18.04.2000 stating that no such agreement for sale was executed. Appellant claims that he learnt that the deceased 1st defendant executed settlement deed No.755 of 2000 in favour of respondents 1 and 2/defendants 2 and 3 on 17.02.2000. According to the appellant, that is a sham document.2
RSA No.800 of 2012
Hence the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and alternatively for recovery of `71,850/- with interest.
suit. That was confirmed by the first appellate court and hence the Second Appeal.
3
RSA No.800 of 2012
4
RSA No.800 of 2012
appellant. PW3 is a witness in Ext.A1. At time of examination PW3 had crossed the age of 80 years. Initially he stated when Ext.A1 was put to him that the document does not contain his signature but, later he identified his signature. His evidence would show that he had no idea about Ext.A1, he does not know to whom and when it was executed. Thus, the evidence of PW3 came under very suspicious circumstances. Learned Munsiff has observed that signature of PW3 in Ext.A1 and his proof affidavit bore some difference.
5
RSA No.800 of 2012
cordial. The finding entered by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court is based on the evidence on record and involves no substantial question of law.
Second Appeal is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the agreement for sale (Ext.A1) was duly executed and whether specific performance should be granted.
Whether the findings of the lower courts on the authenticity of the agreement for sale are based on substantial questions of law.
Whether the appellant demonstrated a continuous and beneficial interest in the property justifying purchase over inheritance.
SURESH KUMAR
KUNJUKRISHNAN ACHARY
GIRISH KUMAR
SUDHA
KARTHIAYANI AMMA THANKAMMA
THANKAMMA SULOCHANA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court