IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27799 of 2005(H)
1. SAROJINI, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHENTHAMARA, S/O. KOYU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :06/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 27799 OF 2005
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
A decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of
property was passed against the petitioner and in execution of that
decree a document of conveyance was executed by the court in his
favour. But when respondent levied execution of that decree there were
some negotiations between the parties who arrived at Ext.P4
agreement. On the terms of Ext.P4 the respondent agreed that the
property will be re-conveyed to the petitioner on payment of
Rs.1,15,000/-. The petitioner had readily paid Rs.80,000/- on the date
of Ext.P4 itself. For payment of balance amount of Rs.35,000/- time till
20.09.04 was provided in the agreement. The petitioner did not pay the
balance amount within the stipulated time. It is the term of Ext.P4 that if
the balance amount is not paid within the stipulated time, Ext.P4 will
lapse and that the respondent can get delivery of the property taken
through the court and under such an event the respondents will be liable
to refund only Rs.60,000/- out of the amount paid under Ext.P4.
Complaining that the balance amount was not paid in the stipulated time
and seeking delivery of the property, the petitioner filed IA No.1327 of
2004. The court below received counter affidavit from the petitioner in
WPC No. 27799 of 2005
2
that IA and while the IA stood posted for enquiry, once again there was
a move for settlement and the court below adjourned the IA for
settlement on several dates. Finally time for settlement was extended
till 02.09.05 and on that day the court below has passed the impugned
order directing delivery, noticing that settlement has not materialsed.
2. Heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.Sajan Varghese, counsel for the respondent.
3. Fervant submissions were made by counsel on both sides. I do
not find any infirmity about the impugned order warranting correction in
this court’s visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227. But it is seen that
this court on admitting the writ petition became inclined to grant stay on
condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-. When
that amount was tendered to the decree holder, they were not ready to
accept the amount and hence amount was deposited by the petitioner
before the court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances which attend on
this case, I feel that considerations of indulgence and compassion
require that the petitioner be given another chance to avert the difficult
situation of being dispossessed from the properties which are said to be
her residential aboard. But the interest of the respondent also cannot
be lost sight of. The balance amount of Rs.35,000/- was payable up to
WPC No. 27799 of 2005
3
02.09.2005. Even at a reasonable rate of roughly 12% the amount
should generate interest of Rs.11,000/- as on 15.07.2007. Even as I
refuse to set aside the impugned order, I direct that the order of stay
presently passed will become absolute if the petitioner pays a sum of
Rs.36,000/- to the respondent on or before 15.07.07. If that amount is
tendered to the respondent before that date, the same will be received
by the respondent in full settlement of his monetary claims under Ext.P4.
The respondents will also be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.10,000/-
deposited by the petitioner before the court. If the amount is not paid as
above, the stay will stand vacated and the impugned order will become
operative. If amount is paid as above the respondent will execute a re-
conveyance deed, cost of which will be born by the petitioners
themselves.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No. 27799 of 2005
4