IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 154 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN AS.996/1998 Dated 23/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------- PALOTTIL RAGHAVAN, S/O.MALINGAN AND VELLACHI AMMA, RESIDING AT KARUVALAM IN KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PADANAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT/APPELLANT ------------------- MULLACHERRY KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, S/O.MUNDATH KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUYYANGAT IN BELHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. -------------------------- R.P.NO.154 OF 2010 IN A.S.NO.996 OF 1998 -------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 O R D E R Respondent in A.S.No.996/98 seeks to review the judgment dated 23/12/2009. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale. This Court allowed the appeal granting a decree for specific performance. The defendant/respondent is directed to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of th3e plaintiff within a period three months from the date of the judgment after receiving the balance sale consideration. This Court examined the respective contentions of the parties. This is a case where the suit was filed for specific performance on the basis of Ext.A1 registered agreement for sale dated 20/7/1989. The defendant received Rs.50,000/- on the date of agreement and agreed to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale -2- R.P.No.154/2010 consideration of Rs.5,000/-. There is an averment in the plaint that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying balance consideration. Plaintiff had also sent Ext.A2 lawyer notice dated 17/10/1989 i.e. before the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement. This Court held that the defendant executed Ext.A1 agreement after fixing the value of te property at Rs.55,000/-. The contention of the defendant was also considered. The review petitioner/defendant id not adduce any independent evidence in support of the contentions raised in the written statement. This Court also examined the conduct of the defendant and the surrounding circumstances. This Court noticed that the review petitioner/defendant failed to adduce any evidence to prove that none of the identifying witness to Ext.A1 was examined to prove that no consideration was received by the defendant on the date of execution of Ext.A1 agreement. None of the identifying witness nor the scribe was examined to prove that the alleged transaction is false. The other contentions raised -3- R.P.No.154/2010 by the appellant were examined in detail by this Court. This Court further examined the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief for specific performance, that the contention of the defendant that the relief of specific performance of contract for sale is a discretionary relief and that this is not a fit case for exercising the discretion and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. I have examined the facts and circumstances, the conduct of the parties, the admission of execution of Ext.A1 agreement and all other attendant circumstances and found no reason to desist from exercising the discretionary relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. It was also observed that this Court is unable to agree with the reasonings and findings of the court below for non- suiting the plaintiff and that the reasons stated by the court below are not supported by the legal principles and the facts proved in this case. All the contentions raised in the review petition are -4- R.P.No.154/2010 questions agitated before this Court in A.S.No.996/1998. I find no reason to entertain the review petition. Review Petition stands dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.