IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 FAO.No. 181 of 2008() & CAVEAT O.P.NO.558 OF 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/04/2008 IN IA 258/2008 IN OS.18/2007 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- PATTASSERI PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PATTASSERIL HOUSE, CHAPPARAPADAVU P.O., KOOVERI, AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ----------------------- 1. KOLANGARUKUNDI MADATHILEA VALAPPIL SAYED HASHIM KUNHI THANGAL, S/O.IMBICHI KOYA THANGAL, "HASRUTH MANZIL", P.O.KOLACHERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. POOVAMKULATHIL THOTTAM PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHAMINA, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, -DO- -DO- 3. POOVAMKULATHIL THOTTAM PUTHIYAPURAYIL MULLA BEEVI, D/O.SAYED HASHIM KUNHI THANGAL, -DO- -DO- 4. POOVAMKULATHIL THOTTAM PUTHIYAPURAYIL KUNHAYISUMMA, W/O.SAYED HASHIM KUNHI THANGAL, -DO- -DO- 5. CHUNDOONNUMMAL MOIDEEN HAJI, S/O.MAYAN, "AL-AMAN", PALATHUMKARA, P.O.CHEKKIKULAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. THUZHEPURAYIL KUNHAMINA, W/O.CHUNDOONNUMMAL MOIDEEN HAJI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH(CAVEATOR) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ON 29/07/2008 ALONG WITH CAVEAT O.P.NO.558/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.181 OF 2008 & CAVEAT O.P.NO.558 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July,2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. This is an appeal against the order declining the relief for appointment of a Receiver as sought for in I.A.No.258/2008. Suit is one for specific performance based on the agreement between the parties. Admittedly, the possession continues to be with the defendants. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid by way of advance and there is a condition in the agreement that if an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is paid within the agreement period, the possession will be handed over to the plaintiff. In spite of repeated efforts, the defendants did not accept the same. Now there is an attempt on the part of the defendants to diminish the value of the property by slaughter tapping of the trees. Hence this appeal. The court below found that if the -2- F.A.O.No.181/08 & CAVEAT O.P..No.558/08 respondents/defendants have done any acts in violation of the terms of the contract, the appellant/plaintiff can get the sale deed executed in his favour. It is not a ground for appointment of a Receiver. Admittedly, there is only an agreement for sale and the defendants stated to be owners of the property. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was not received by the defendants. Therefore, possession is not handed over. The merits of the contention raised by the parties has to be decided finally in the suit. In such circumstances, we do not think that the court below was in any way wrong in declining the relief for appointment of a Receiver. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, since it is submitted that issues have already been framed after completing the pleadings, the suit be disposed of expeditiously. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kcv.