IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 FAO.No. 62 of 2011() -------------------- OS.455/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SUSEELA PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, ERUMAKUZHIYIL MURIYIL, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. BHARGAVAN PILLAI, VRINDAVANAM, ERUMAKUZHIYIL MURIYIL, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.M.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------- GANGADHARA KURUP, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, MANTHANATH VEEDU, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 561. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O..No. 62 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellants challenge the order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam granting injunction restraining the appellants until further orders from alienating the plaint schedule property and committing waste therein. It was clarified that the order of injunction will not operate as a bar against the appellants from taking yield from the plaint schedule property. 2. Briefly the case of the appellants is as follows. Appellants are the defendants in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. It is the case of the appellants that they have not executed any agreement. Even as per the averments in the plaint, if the first appellant did not execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property within the time stipulated F.A.O..No. 62 of 2011 2 in the agreement for sale the respondent can enforce the said agreement by filing a suit only after deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- before the court. The appellants contended that in so far as the respondent did not deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- before the court, the suit itself is premature. 3. In the nature of the suit, we see no reason to interfere with the order. However we direct the Additional Sub Judge, Kollam to dispose of the suit at the earliest. 4. This Appeal is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm