This second appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The High Court held that the genuineness of the document is a question of fact conclusively decided by two lower courts, barring challenge under Section 100 CPC, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits.
Second appeal dismissed as devoid of merits.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
RSA.No. 591 of 2012 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 105/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 25-01-2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 38/2004 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 29-09-2006
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
P.OMANAKUTTIAMMA AGED 57 YEARS, D/O PADMAVATHY AMMA, ARUNIMA PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN
SRI.V.N.SUBHANGAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1. A.S.RAJU AGED 55 YEARS, S/O SANKARA PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM THEVAVATTOM MURI THYKATTUSSERY VILLAGE FROM ALUNKAL HOUSE PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE -688566.
2. PUSHPAVALLY @ PUSPALATHA AGED 48 YEARS, W/O A.S. RAJU, VRINDAVANAM THEVAVATTOM MURI THYKATTUSSERY VILLAGE FROM ALUNKAL HOUSE PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE -688566.
3. SATHI
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ------------------------------R.S.A. No.591 of 2012
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is the appellant in this second appeal.
R.S.A.NO.591/2012
2
the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against her, has thus come up in this second appeal.
genuine or not is a pure question of fact. Two courts have concurrently found on facts that Ext.A1 is not a genuine agreement for sale. The said decisions rendered on facts cannot be challenged in a proceedings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The second appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
SD/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
JV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a finding that an agreement for sale is not genuine can be challenged in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the second appeal regarding the specific performance of an agreement for sale has any merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Omanakuttiamma
A.S. Raju
Pushpavally
Sathi
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
