Appeal against a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The Single Judge held the trial court correctly refused to enhance consideration due to materials facts and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no order on costs.
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
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939
RFA.No. 804 of 2012
---------------------
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 12-04-2012 IN OS 190/2006 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O.ATHRAYIL PUTHANAYIL RAJALAKSHMI AMMA, VIYYAKKURUSSI ASMOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT PRIYA NIVAS, KUNNATHOORMEDU, KUNNATHOOR AMSOM, PALAKKAD-678001.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.K.C.KIRAN SRI.M.DEVESH
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
P.K.SREEDHARAN, S/O.KUNJIRAMA MANNADIYAR, SANKARJI STREET, MOOTHANTHARA, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
R.F.A.No.804 of 2012
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the defendant and the respondent the plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 2006 on the file of Sub Judge, Ottappalam. The plaint schedule immovable property belongs to the former. On 4.5.2005 she entered into an agreement with the latter for its sale. The consideration was fixed at Rs.5000/- per cent. On the date of agreement the appellant received Rs.5 lakh and on 2.11.2005 Rs.7 lakh and on 4.2.2006 Rs. 1 lakh towards the sale consideration. The sale deed should have been executed by 4.11.2005, but before that date the period was extended. Thereafter, it was extended again for six months from 4.2.2006. In spite of demand, the appellant did not execute sale deed. The respondent has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On these allegations the respondent instituted the suit for a decree for specific performance. In her written statement the appellant admitted genuineness of the agreement and receipt of part of the consideration. Her main contention was that the respondent has not been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. After the trial the court decreed the suit as prayed for. This is challenged.
R.F.A.No.804 of 2012 2
R.F.A.No.804 of 2012 3
advance. She admittedly used it for purchasing another property. In these circumstances, it is not fair on the part of the court to take into consideration the alleged phenomenal increase in the value of the property.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. But in the nature of the case
no costs.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
pm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement should be set aside when the appellant argues delay in initiating the suit.
Whether the alleged escalation in property price warrants enhancement of sale consideration or refusal of specific performance.
VIJAYAKUMARI
P.K.SREEDHARAN
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
