P V HEMALATHA Vs. KATTAMKANDI PUTHIYA MALIACKAL SAHEEDA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
KATTAMKANDI PUTHIYA MALIACKAL SAHEEDA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)These special leave petitions have been filed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court dated 19-1-2001 which have arisen out of two suits seeking injunction and two other suits claiming decree of specific performance of the contract for sale of two cinema theaters viz., Sangam and Pushpa in Calicut. Calicut was part of erstwhile Malabar District in State of Madras and now forms part of new State Kerala.
An uncommon question of legal and procedural difficulty has arisen giving rise to these special leave petitions for appeal against the order of Division Bench of Kerala High Court. The subordinate Judge of Calicut dismissed the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale of Sangam and Pushpa threatres by judgment dated 1-4-1978. The appeals preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the High Court of Kerala were decided by common judgment with the appeals arising from the injunction matters. The two Judges constituting the Division Bench sharply differed on all issues of fact and mixed issues of fact and law. Justice J. K. Balasubramanyan dismissed the appeals holding that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) is not entitled to decree of specific performance. The other Judge, Justice K. A. Abdul Gafoor, differed and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Specific Performance. He, therefore, allowed the appeals.
(2.)In the course of hearing, it is not disputed before us by the counsel appearing for the parties that the main issue arising on facts between the parties which was sufficient to dispose of the appeals was regarding the right of the plaintiff to claim decree of the specific performance. The other mixed issue of law and fact whether the property being custodia legis through the Receiver appointed by the Court the suit without obtaining leave of the Court was maintainable or not, was an additional ground to grant or refuse the decree of specific performance. The other related issues of fact which arose in the suit were regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to obtain the sale in due time and the entitlement of the plaintiff to the grant of equitable relief of decree of specific performance.
(3.)The two Judges constituting the Division Bench delivered two separate judgments in which they have differed on almost all issues arising in the case. After delivering two separate judgments, the Judges then formulated the impugned order dated 19-1-2001 and came to the conclusion that since they have delivered two separate judgments and have not identified difference on any point of law, the decree of the Court below passed by the Court is liable to be confirmed in terms of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short "the Code").
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.