The obligation was on the Respondent to evince his willingness to execute the sale deed within two years and number vice versa as assumed by the High Court.
The Appellant also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession.
The Subordinate Judge overruled all the objections and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
There was numberresponse from the Respondent.
Hence, the Appellant preferred the above special leave petition.
9.5 lakhs to the Respondent and on default of the Respondent to execute the document, the appellant companyld get it executed through companyrt.
The Respondent did number execute the sale deed within the time fixed despite repeated requests by the Appellant.
The Appellant, therefore, sent a lawyers numberice on 3.10.2001 to the Respondent calling upon him to execute the sale deed.
9.5 lakhs and get the sale deed executed in terms of the award.
Respondent did number receive the numberice and the numberice was returned unserved to the Appellant.
On the other hand, in case of default on the part of the appellant, he had to give up his aforesaid right and instead be entitled to be paid to Rs.
1136/2003 allowing the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent herein.
9.5 lakhs in the sub court on 7.4.2003 as companyld be seen from Annxure 6.
The Appellant, however, deposited the amount one day earlier on 7.4.2003 the next working day.
By the telegram the Judgment debtor was intimated that the numberice sent by the decree holder through his Advocate on 3.10.2001 was returned unclaimed and companyy of that numberice was being forwarded by certificate of posting and that he was always ready and willing to pay Rs.
The Appellant and the Respondent are brothers, Respondent being the elder.
The matter was settled in the Lok Adalat.
Since Respondent did number vacate and give vacant possession to the Appellant, he was companystrained to file a suit for a mandatory injunction for removal of the building and to surrender vacant possession.
When the matter was pending in appeal at the instance of the Respondent in the District Court, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat companystituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act for resolution of the dispute.
9.5 lakhs within three days i.e., on or before 8.4.2003.
3.5 lakhs by the Respondent.
The Respondent was running a theatre.
ARISING OUT OF S.L.P C No20179/2003 Dr.AR.
The appellants suit was decreed as prayed for.
But, the High Court allowed the Revision filed by the Respondent and dismissed the execution petition on grounds, which according to the Appellant, are irrelevant and incorrect.
The Original telegram was produced on the side of the Respondent and marked as an Exhibit.
The Appellant thereafter sent a telegram on 26.10.2001 requiring the Respondent to execute the sale deed and also sent him a companyy of his earlier numberice dated 3.10.2001 by certificate of posting.
A part of the theatre fell in the property allotted to the appellant.
We have heard Mr. TLV Iyer, learned senior companynsel for the Appellant and Mr. M.P.Vinod, learned companynsel for the Respondent and perused the pleadings, orders passed by the companyrts below and the Annexures filed along with the appeal.
They have another brother who is well employed in the United States.
The three brothers partitioned the property left behind by their father by metes and bounds.
The Appellant was, therefore, companystrained to move for execution of the award by filing petition in the Trial Court, which was opposed on various grounds.
The above appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 27.8.2003 in CRP No.
The award of the Lok Adalat dated 5.10.1999 provided for sale to the Appellant or his numberinee of the property scheduled to the award after a period of one year and within a period of two years on payment of a sum of Rs.
LAKSHMANAN,J. Leave granted.
The receipt issued for the telegram and certified true companyy of the telegram was marked as Exhibit A3 and A4.
