Gopalan Nair vs Tami Abraham
2021 Latest Caselaw 2110 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                         OP(C).No.132 OF 2021

                OS 68/2018 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

                             -----------


PETITIONER:

               GOPALAN NAIR
               AGED 92 YEARS
               S/O. RAMAN NAIR, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
               KUNNAM VECHOOCHIRA P.O., RANNI TALUK,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686 511.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN
               SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        TAMI ABRAHAM
               AGED 59 YEARS
               (WRONGLY SHOWIN IN THE ORDER AS TOMY ABRAHAM),
               S/O. ABRAHAM, MANIMALETHU GEMINI GARDENS,
               KUNNAM VECHOOCHIRA P.O., RANNI TALUK,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686 511.

      2        SREEKUMAR
               AGED 53 YEARS
               S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE,
               KUNNAM VECHOOCHIRA P.O., RANNI TALUK,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-686 511.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
               R1 BY ADV. SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                   SATHISH NINAN, J.
         ==================
                O. P. (C) No.132 of 2021
         ==================
        Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021

                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the second defendant in the

suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. He challenged the maintainability of the suit

on the ground that he has a life interest over the

property and that he is admittedly not a party to

the alleged sale agreement.

2. The trial court rightly noticed that the

interest of the petitioner-second defendant is only

a right to enjoy the property by taking usufructs

during his life time and that it does not stand in

the way of the first defendant entering into an

agreement for sale. The trial court has rightly

noticed that the rights of the petitioner will not

be affected by any such agreement. All these do not

affect the maintainability of the suit. The court

below was right in holding the suit to be

maintainable.

O. P. (C) No.132 of 2021

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the agreement in question is an unregistered

one and hence the suit for specific performance

based on the unregistered agreement is not

maintainable. If such a contention is urged before

the trial court, I have no reason to assume that

the same will not be considered by the court.

The order impugned calls for no interference.

Original petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.132 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.778/1995 OF THE RANNI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WITH TYPED COPY.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.68/18 OF THE SUB COURT PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 13.3.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN O.S.68/18 OF THE SUB COURT PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY FO I.A.666/19 IN O.S.68/18 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A.666/19 IN O.S.68/18 OF THE SUB COURT PATHANAMTHITTA.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2020 IN I.A.666/19 IN O.S.68/18 OF THE SUB COURT PATHANAMTHITTA.

-------------