ROSY Vs. RAPPAI, S/O.PALISSERY LONAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, challenges the order passed in an application filed before the court below, to get registration of the sale deed, through court, in pursuance to the decree passed. The brief facts which led to the suit is that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 22.12.1997 for sale of 10 cents of property standing in the name of the defendant. The defendant having failed to execute conveyance as per the agreement, the plaintiff filed the suit which was decreed on 26.6.2001. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1.25 lakhs was also deposited before court. The plaintiff, then, filed a petition numbered as I.A NO.5039 of 2001 for getting registration of the sale deed through Court.

(2.) IN the Interlocutory Application, the defendant, who was the respondent, was set ex-parte. The plaintiff having expired, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 9. Respondents 2 to 4 also were impleaded in the petition. The second respondent, a company engaged in "kuri" business; claimed a mortgage of the property in the year 1990, by deposit of title deeds, by the first respondent/defendant. This was in lieu of the 'kuri' transactions entered into by the first respondent with the second respondent. Altogether 17 suits with respect to various transactions were filed by the second respondent against the 1st respondent, and the decrees therein were executed. In the execution proceedings, the property was purchased by the second respondent in Court auction for a sum of Rs.7,50,000.00. The sale was confirmed on 19.7.2004.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel Sri.G. Sreekumar for the revision petitioner and Sri.P.B.Krishnan for the second respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the suit filed was only for the specific performance of an agreement and it cannot at all be termed to be a "suit for land". The lower court had proceeded on totally irrelevant consideration and embarked upon an enquiry into whether the property was available, free of encumbrance for conveyance as sought for in the I.A. The decree having been passed, the lower court on the application filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff is only enjoined upon to execute the conveyance deed. Whatever rights available to the beneficiary or decree holder is, for him, to assert and claim in appropriate proceedings. To advance his contentions, the learned counsel would place reliance on ADCON electronics Pvt. Ltd., v. Daulat and another (2001(7)SCC 698) and Nilgiri Estates P. Ltd. v Khaniva Housing (India)Pvt. Ltd.(2012 KHC 2250). Learned counsel would also point out that the sale relied upon by the second respondent was on 19.7.2004; when the IP was pending before the competent court. The Insolvency Petition having been allowed adjudging the first respondent as insolvent, the same would relate back to the date of filing; that is the year 1998. The exact date, though not available, what prompted the said Insolvency petition was assignment of 10 cents of land, on 25.9.1998, and the petition is numbered in the year 1998.