2025:KER:25354 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 SA NO. 794 OF 2000 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2000 IN AS NO.20 OF 2000 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED IN OS NO.1098 OF 1994 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. THAYYIL VELAYUDHAN, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, AVINISSERY DESOM, THRISUR TALUK BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: VILASINI, D/O. MALAYAN THATTAN CHATHA, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, AVINISSERY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 2 JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff in a suit for Specific Performance is the appellant. The plaintiff sought specific performance of Ext.A1 Agreement dated 02/05/1994 in which the plaintiff agreed to purchase 1 1/8 cents from the defendants for a sale consideration of Rs.4,500/- per cent. As per the said Agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,000/- as advance to the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit even before the expiry of the agreement period, since the defendant refused to sell the property after measurement, insisting that the plaintiff should pay value for 1 cent of land found on measurement as Puramboke. 2. The defendant opposed the suit prayers by filing written statement contending that the defendant did not 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 3 insist the plaintiff to purchase any puramboke land, no puramboke land was found on measurement. The plaintiff is making lame excuses to withdraw from Ext.A1 agreement. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is not proved and that the plaintiff is not entitled to get specific performance of agreement. The Trial Court did not grant even return of the advance amount. 4. The plaintiff filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff is not entitled to get specific performance but granted a money decree for recovering the advance amount of Rs.2,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 12/10/1994. It is against the refusal of the Courts 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 4 to grant specific performance and the present appeal is filed. 5. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Dinesh Mathew Muricken. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was dismissed on the ground that it is premature. The plaintiff had reason to file the suit before the expiry of the agreement period. When the defendant refused to perform Ext.A1 agreement by insisting to purchase puramboke land found on measurement, the denial to execute sale deed in compliance with Ext.A1 sale agreement even before the expiry of the agreement period is evident. In such a case, the plaintiff need not wait till the expiry of the Agreement period. The plaintiff is perfectly justified in 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 5 filing the suit even before the agreement period. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the property of 1 1/8 cents of land included in Ext. A1 agreement. It was the defendant, who refused to execute the sale deed with respect to the said 1 1/8 cents of land making unreasonable demands 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was dismissed finding that it is premature, I do not find any such finding either in the Trial Court judgment or in the First Appellate Court judgment. It is true that the courts have referred to the fact that the suit was filed before the agreement period. It is only a reference to the fact. The court found that 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 6 the cause of action alleged in the plaint is not correct and decree was not granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant demanded to purchase 1 cent of puramboke land found on measurement, the said plea was specifically denied by the defendant. The defendant specifically stated that he is ready and willing to sell 1 1/8 cents of land. In such case it is for the plaintiff to prove that such a demand was made by the defendant. There is no evidence that puramboke was found on measurement. It is in evidence that the property was measured by the Village Officer in the presence of the brother in law of the plaintiff and his neighbour Bhaskaran. The plaintiff could have cited those persons as witnesses to prove the fact that a 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 7 puramboke was found on measurement. From the records, there is no evidence before the court to prove that there was puramboke land found on measurement. When the defendant denied the demand to purchase the puramboke land, the said fact is also to be proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved the said fact. If the plaintiff was willing to purchase the property after the filing of the suit, the plaintiff could have taken steps to get it done by making necessary submissions to the court since the defendant also contended that he is agreeable to sell the property of 1 1/8 cents involved in Ext.A1 agreement to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the agreement period had not expired at the time of filing the suit. No such attempt was made by the plaintiff. 2025:KER:25354 SA NO.794 OF 2000 8 9. There is nothing wrong in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. There is no substantial question of law in the matter. I do not find any ground or reason to interfere. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms