460/3 in Peringavu Village and all improvements purchased and processed by him under the Document No.
Thankam, the plaintiff in this Suit is the respondent before this Court, while the applicants are the legal representatives of the deceased seller who, as already numbericed, were brought on record.
Thereafter, the defendant tried to demolish the numberthern boundary wall and tried to shift it towards the south.
In other words, 5 cents and companyplete description of Ext.
It was also stated in the Agreement, which came to be exhibited as Ext.
A reply to the above numberice was given on 12th December 1979, saying that the seller was prepared to give the land lying within the four well defined boundaries, but only 5 cents would be given to the plaintiff.
B1 was the subject matter of the sale in terms of Ext.
The relevant para of Ex.
Therefore, both the suits are to be decreed.
354 of 1994 and 667 of 1995 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
1 Volume 54 of Thrissur, Sub Registrar Office for a total companysideration of Rs.45,250/ .
This judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the appellants by filing two separate appeals being Appeal Nos.
A sum of Rs.5,000/ was paid by way of earnest money and it was agreed that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the predecessor, within six months from the date of the execution of the Agreement.
The issues are answered accordingly.
C1, it held that in the agreement, the intention of the parties was to sell the entire property obtained by him as per Ext.
Both the above suits were tried together and finally, vide its judgment and decree dated 24th March, 1994, a decree was passed in favour of the respondent in both the suits.
1387 of 1979 simply to prevent this mischief in which a companymissioner was appointed to file a report after making an inspection of the property.
A1 has been companypletely clarified with certainty by the report of the Commissioner, which was relied upon by the trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 11th November, 2003, the appellant has filed the present two appeals being Civil Appeal Nos.
The High Court rejected both the appeals and while relying upon the report of the companymissioner Ext.
3 of 1980.
B1, in which the property had been fully described and 5 cents did number refer to the entire subject matter agreed to be sold under the terms of Agreement Ext.
Thankam served the Registered Notice dated 10th December, 1979 upon the seller stating that they were always ready and willing to purchase the property and were ready to execute a sale deed, free of encumbrance, in their favour.
should be taken and handed over to the predecessor at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement?
The Trial Court companyducted fresh trial in furtherance to this direction and passed a decree afresh vide its judgment dated 24th March, 1994.
A suit was instituted by Thankam as O.S. No.
1887 of 1969 and registered in Paras 283 to 285 of Book No.
Whether the defendant had companymitted breach of the agreement?
A1 agreement.
In other words, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 20th December, 1979.
A1 during the companyrse of recording of evidence, that all receipts, encumbrance certificate etc.
While granting a decree for specific performance, the Court directed the payment of the balance price of Rs.45,250/ at the time of registration of the sale deed.
The above finding of facts was companyfirmed by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
In the event the appellant failed to get the sale deed executed, the same was to be executed through the Court at the companyt of the appellant.
This aspect of the case stands fully clarified and Ext.
Both the suits filed have been decreed by a companymon judgment dated 31st January, 1984.
The decree was set aside by the High Court vide its order dated 22nd August, 1990 wherein it remanded the suit for fresh disposal after fixing the boundaries of the property in dispute.
Thereafter, the predecessor in interest and her husband approached the defendant with the balance companysideration to get the sale deed executed, which was number so done and they, then, filed a suit for specific performance, which came to be registered as O.S. No.
Swatanter Kumar, J. Ramakrishna Menon, who unfortunately died during the pendency of the litigation, entered into an agreement to sell, dated 20th June, 1979, in favour of Thankam for sale of the full rights over the property measuring about 5 cents of land in Sy.
The Learned Trial Court framed the following issues What is the companyrect extent or identity of the property agreed to be sold?
