Dismissed

C.K. Abdulla v. Inchikkal Chathukutty

Kerala HC17 Jan 2014RSA/1428/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal against findings on specific performance and return of advance money, the Kerala High Court held that the lower courts rightly disallowed specific performance of an alleged land agreement. Upholding the lower courts' finding of genuineness of evidence, the court found no reason to upset the decrees and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed. Previous decrees for return of Rs. 50,000 advance money confirmed and stand.

C.K. Abdulla Vs Inchikkal Chathukutty — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/27TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

RSA.No. 1428 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 92/2005 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 15-11-2011

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 393/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA DATED 30-09-2005

¶8

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

CHERIYA VALAPPINAKATH KAROTH ABDULLA, S/O.UMMER, AGED 54 YEARS, BUSINESS, KOSAVAN VAYAL P.O., KALLIAD AMSOM OORATHUR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶11

SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT//PLAINTIFF:

¶13

INCHIKKAL CHATHUKUTTY,

¶14

S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, KOSAVAN VAYAL P.O., KALLIAD AMSOM, OORATHUR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670593.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

DSV/22/01

¶19

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

===================

¶21

R.S.A 1428 of 2012 ===================== Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2014.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for

¶24

specific performance and in the alternate for return of advance money. The Trial Court did not grant specific performance but only directed to return the advance of money Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only/-). The total consideration stated to have been fixed was Rs. 70,000/-. The decree for return of money was confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very fact that 1 acre of property was alleged to have been agreed to be sold by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff would show that Ext. A1 agreement is a concocted one and Ext. A1 was not attested by any witness and that had it been a true document, it would have been attested by witnesses. It is further submitted that though PW2 has given evidence that Ext. A1 was written by him,

¶26

R.S.A 1428 of 2012

¶27

¶28

his name, license number or anything of that sort was not noted on Ext. A1 and so that also will cause serious doubt as to the genuineness of the agreement set up by the plaintiff. The evidence given by PWs 1 and 2 is that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was obtained by the appellant from the plaintiff. Though it may appear that the alleged agreement for sale of 1 acre of land for a paltry sum of Rs. 70,000/- is unreasonable, the fact that money was obtained by the appellant from the plaintiff can not be disputed. The courts below have rightly not granted a decree for specific performance but only for return of advance money. Since, that findings was entered by the courts below relying upon the evidence given by the plaintiff and the scribe of Ext. A1,

¶29

I do not find any reason to upset that findings. No substantial question of law arises.

¶30

This second appeal is hence dismissed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶33

// TRUE COPY//

¶34

P.A TO JUDGE

¶35

C.K. Abdulla v. Inchikkal Chathukutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Abdulla v. Inchikkal Chathukutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Francis Reading Association Mattom Vs St.Thomas Ferona Church Mattom

Balakrishna Pillai Vs Muralidharan Nair

Jose Vs K.G.Krishnakumar

Aruvampalli Puthiyapurayil Hamza Vs Puthiyapurayil Rukhiyabi

Mochamannil Aboobacker Vs P.N.Kishor Kumar

Sajan, S/O.Manjooran Jose Vs Alphonsa, W/O.Edatukaran Varghese