P.K.Sajimon v. Savithri
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the second appeal. It held that the alleged oral arrangement was inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and affirmed the specific performance decree.
What did the court decide?
Specific performance decree confirmed. Appeal dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939
RSA.No. 546 of 2015 (F)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-11-2014 IN AS 113/2013 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II (SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-01-2013 IN OS 594/2011 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANTS/ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 & 3/LRS OF 1ST DEFENDANT :
1. P.K.SAJIMON, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PUTHUVEETTIL, KARAPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK.
2. P.S.AMBIKA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.PRASAD, MANNADAKARICHIRAYIL, NEDUMUDI P.O., KAINKARY VILLAGE, PONGA BHAGOM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM) SRI.MURUKESH REGHU
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the oral agreement alleged by the appellant to discharge bank liability is admissible in evidence under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the courts below erred in granting specific performance of the sale agreement despite an alleged oral modification.
Whether allowing a three-year period for execution of the sale deed is judicially unreasonable.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
P.K.SAJIMON
- appellant
P.S.AMBIKA
- respondent
SAVITHRI
- respondent
KARAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court