Full Judgment
AS NO. 300 OF 2002 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29-1-2002 IN OS 687/1996 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 K.S. ABDUL KHADER, SON OF SAIDU MUHAMMED ROWTHER, AMAKKULAM, VADAKKENCHEERY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 2 BEEPATHUMMA, WIFE OF SAIDU MUHAMMED ROWTHER, AMAKKULAM, 3 MUHAMMED NAZAR, SON OF SAIDU MUHAMMED ROWTHER, AMAKKULAM, SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 6: 1 PATHUMMA, WIFE OF THE LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL, 2 RAHIYANATH, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL, PALAKKD DISTRICT. 3 ABDUL HAKKIM, SON OF THE LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL, 4 ABDUL RAFEEQ, SON OF THE LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL, 5 SHAJAHAN, SON OF THE LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL, K.MOHANAKANNAN-R1 TO R5 M.A.ZOHRA-R2,R5 11.03.2022, ALONG WITH RFA.539/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY [AS Nos.300/2002, 539/2005] 2 RFA NO. 539 OF 2005 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29/01/2002 IN OS 397/1995 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD AS 101/2002 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 6: 1 PATHUMUTHUMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MUHAMMED ISMAIL. 2 RAHIYANATH, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL. 3 ABDUL HAKKIM, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL. 4 ABDUL RAFEEQ,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL. 5 SHAJAHAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL. APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 TO 5, ARE RESIDING AT KANAKKAN THURUTHI,VADAKKENCHERRY, AMSOM AND DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. 2ND APPELLANT IS NOW RESIDING WITH HER HUSBAND IBRAHIM AT POST BOX NO. 656 DEMAM, SOUDHI ARABIA. BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN-A1,A2,A4,A5 M.A.ZOHRA-A2 RESPONDENTS: 1 K.S.ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MOHAMMED ROWTHER, RESIDING NEAR AMAKKULAM, 2 BEEPATHUMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, WIFE OF K.S. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING NEAR AMAKKULAM, VADAKKENCHERRY AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD 3 MOHAMMED NAZAR, AGED 24 YEARS SON OF K.S. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING NEAR AMAKKULAM, BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR-R1,R2 11.03.2022, ALONG WITH AS.300/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY [AS Nos.300/2002, 539/2005] 3
JUDGMENT
The litigation was started in the year 1995. It is pertaining to the enforcement of a contract for sale, Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A2 is the subsequent contract for sale. The total sale consideration agreed into by the parties comes to Rs.3,45,000/-, out which the advance amount given under two agreements comes to Rs.1,75,000/-. The agreements are of the year 1994 & 1995 respectively. Now 25 years have already elapsed. Hence, in order to work out equity, good conscience and fairness, it is fairly conceded by both the counsel that in view of the payment of in and around half of the sale consideration which comes to Rs.1,75,000/-, out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.3,45,000/- it is fit and proper to grant specific performance regarding half of the property i.e. 10 cents of land excluding the property wherein the building is situated by providing road access in [AS Nos.300/2002, 539/2005] 4 adjustment of advance amount received towards the sale consideration. Both the counsel fairly submitted that it is possible to separate 10 cents of property without building out of the 20 cents. Hence, a decree is granted accordingly. The interim injunction granted will stand confined to the 10 cents of property that may be given in specific performance as ordered above. Both the appeals will stand allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp