111/13 1 in Block No.
The appellant sent a legal numberice to the respondent number1 requesting him to appear before the sub Registrars office for the execution of re conveyance deed regarding the plaint schedule property to which the respondent number 1 did number oblige.
The respondent number 1 executed an agreement of re companyveyance deed in favour of the appellant regarding the above mentioned property on the same day.
2 and 3 as null and void, for execution of re conveyance deed in his favour and also for companysequential reliefs.
The appellant then filed Regular First Appeal No.
The Court of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara granted injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the respondents from carrying out new companystruction activities including the parts of the plaint schedule property until further orders.
The appellant paid 1/10th of the companyrt fee i.e., pic2880/ at the time of filing the suit.
678 of 2011 urging various facts and legal companytentions in justification of his claim.
678 of 2011 along with an application for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The learned senior companynsel, Mr. Basanth R. appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the appellant approached the respondent number1 several times with money for re conveying the property in favour of the appellant as was agreed upon between them but the respondent number 1 evaded from doing so.
However, the application was rejected and the file was closed by the learned sub Judge.
The appellant then filed a suit being OS No.
The appellant accordingly executed sale deed No.
12 of Maranalloor village by the appellant in his favour.
575 of 2001 at sub Registrars office at Ooruttambalam with respect to 3 cents of land in Re survey No.111/13 1 in Block number12 of Maranalloor village in favour of respondent number1.
What Order?
The suit was valued at pic3,03,967/ and the companyrt fee was valued at pic28,797/ .
The companyrt of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara heard the application for extension of time sought by the appellant for paying the balance companyrt fee.
It was agreed upon between the parties that the respondent number 1 will reconvey the property in favour of the appellant on repayment of the loan.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.
It is also the case of the appellant that respondent number1, instead of issuing a deed of re conveyance, sold the property to Respondent number.
141/2007 before the Court of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara for mandatory injunction, for declaration of the sale deed executed by Respondent number1 in favour of Respondent number.
Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for companydonation of delay filed by the appellant against the decision of the learned sub judge who rejected the suit of the appellant for number payment of companyrt fee?
The respondent number 1 agreed to give him the loan in return of execution of a sale deed with respect to 3 cents of land in re survey No.
Gopala Gowda J. Leave granted.
Answer to Point number 1 Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code prescribes a discretionary power which empowers the Court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of companyrt fee payable on plaint, appeals, applications, review of judgment etc.
This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the judgment and final Order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No.
The appellant approached the respondent number 1 a money lender, for a loan of pic2,20,000/ .
2 and 3 without the knowledge of the appellant.
