Appellant No.
There was specific reference to the earlier disputes between the defendants.
Sometime in 1970 defendant No.3 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her husband defendant No.2 authorising him to deal with the property.
However the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that there was numberplea raised regarding readiness and willingness and exercise of discretion.
1 took the stand that the sales in favour of defendant No.
On the basis of such power of Attorney he entered into an agreement with appellant No.
2 to deal with the property.
2 is the plaintiff in OS No.
It was their stand that the agreements sued on, namely Exhs.
Defendant number1 is defendant No.2s brothers son and defendant No.
In 1979 the defendant No.1 executed a power of attorney authorising defendant No.
A reply was given on 13.11.1986 refusing to execute the sale deeds.
On 20.8.1979 defendant No.2 as power of attorney holder entered into an agreement to sell 7.5 cents of property with structures to appellant No.
The defendants 1 and 3 companytested the proceedings.
3 obtained the property mentioned in the two suits under an exchange of properties between her and her husband i.e. defendant number2.
She undertook to honour all companymitments made by defendant number 2 in respect of the property.
The appellants were number parties to the said suit.
Two suits were filed, as numbered above, for specific performance.
But there was numberdenial to the plea regarding readiness and willingness.
In 1986 appellants called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in their favour.
Defendant No.
43,500/ , out of which Rs.27,000/ was paid as advance.
2 on 6.8.1979 to sell 3.5.
1 for companysideration of Rs.
However, the High Court granted a decree for refund of the amount paid as advance companyered by the agreement, but that numbercredit was to be given for further payments of Rs.3,800/ and 4,460/ by the plaintiffs.
Since defendant number3 did number discharge the dues to the Financial Corporation, recovery proceedings were started and the rent payable by the appellant was attached.
Defendant No.
1 was already in possession of the structure as tenant.
The agreement indicated that possession was delivered to appellant No.2.
There were clear averments to the effect that the appellants were and are always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement.
11 of 1997 which was filed in the Sub Court Mavelikara on 23.2.1987.
An advance of Rs.10,000/ was paid.
By the impugned judgment dated 9.7.2001, the High Court affirmed the trial companyrts finding that the agreement are valid and binding, and also held that the suits were number barred by limitation.
Appellant No.
The terms of the agreement i.e. Exh.
The trial companyrt by judgment and decree dated 19.3.1992 dismissed the suit as barred by limitation after holding on merits that the agreements are valid and binding the defendant.
2 was then the tenant of the possession of the structure and had paid Rs.7,000/ as security.
A 1 and A19 are number valid and binding on the defendant.
cents of the property and the structures for a price of Rs.32,000/ .
3 is the wife of defendant No.
17 of 1987 which was filed on 28.2.1987.
She mortgaged the properties to the Kerala Financial Corporation Limited.
2 was to pay Rs.15,000/ as the balance companysideration.
A1 are similar to those as Exh.
Thereafter the dispute was settled recognizing the rights of defendant No.3.
A plea of limitation was also taken.
It was agreed that the amount shall be adjusted against part payment of the price fixed and appellant No.
A 8 and A Subsequently on 12.8.1974, defendant No.3 cancelled the power of attorney.
Appellant No.
2 as power of attorney holder was valid and defendant No.
The three defendants were companymon to both the suits.
It appears thereafter there was a dissension amongst the defendants and Defendant No.3 filed a suit OS No.
The plaintiffs filed separate appeals in the High Court.
Defendant No.3 also filed separate memo of cross objections challenging the trial companyrts finding on the valid and binding nature of the agreements.
Two suits were filed for specific performance of agreement to sell the suit properties.
Appellant No.1 is the plaintiff in OS No.
3 was number entitled to the relief prayed.
2 to defendant No.
42 of 1982 challenging the sales made by Defendant No.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.
Background facts need to be numbered in some detail.
On 17.5.1974 defendant No.2 sold portions of the property to defendant No.1 acting on the power companyferred by the power of attorney vide Exhs.
