This appeal challenged a decree declining specific performance of an agreement. The High Court upheld the trial court, noting that the respondent had deposited the decreed amount but subsequently alienated the property, rendering specific performance impossible and confirming the dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications 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 ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937
RFA.No. 578 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN OS NO. 165/2005 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA DATED 18-10-2011
APPELLANT(S)/2ND PLAINTIFF:
GIRIJA ,AGED 32 YEARS
D/O. KESAVA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KESAVA VILASOM VEEDU VAYAKKAL MURI OF VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANT & 1ST PLAINTIFF:
R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
R.F.A.No.578 of 2015
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
2
RFA No.578/2015
25.07.2012 and this is evident from Ext.R1(a) produced along with the counter filed in C.M.Application No.400 of 2015. It is also seen that subsequent to the decree under appeal, the 1st respondent alienated the property on 02.03.2012 and that the purchaser thereof further alienated the property by Ext.R1(b) executed on 10.01.2013. As a result of the above, there is no scope at all for interfering with the judgment under appeal.
Appeal, therefore, fails. It is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the decree declining specific performance and allowing monetary compensation should be set aside given the deposit of amount by the respondent and subsequent alienation of the property by the
Whether there is scope for interfering with the judgment under appeal in light of subsequent alienation of the property?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
GIRIJA
LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA
RAJAGOPALAN PILLAI
ANTONY DOMINIC
A.HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
