[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M/S. Vagamon Thomson Farms vs Rajesh George on 31 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:7998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
RFA NO. 355 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2022 IN OS NO.42 OF 2021 OF SUB
COURT, KATTAPPANA
-----
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 M/S. VAGAMON THOMSON FARMS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NANTHIKATTUKANDATHIL BUILDING, MEENACHIL P.O, PALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 686 589, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER RENGU ROBIN, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.ROBIN
ABRAHAM, NANDIKATTU KANDATHIL VEEDU, PALA, MEENACHIL
VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL P.O., PIN;686 589,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 RENGU ROBIN
AGED 39 YEARS
D/O.ROBIN ABRAHAM, NANDIKATTU KANDATHIL VEEDU, PALA,
MEENACHIL KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
MEENACHIL P.O., PIN-686 589, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3 JAISON LUKOSE,
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.C.T.LUKOSE, CHIRAYIL THOMSON VILLA,
ETTUMANOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 631.
4 JITTO JOSE,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.M.T.JOSE, MUNDAKATHARAYIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR.P.O.,
AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 564.
2026:KER:7998
RFA NO. 355 OF 2022 -2-
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.PRADEEP
SHRI.HARISANKAR R
SHRI.JEEVAN KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
RAJESH GEORGE
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.V.J.GEORGE, KULANGARA HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLI KARA,
ELACKAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, MARANGATTUPILLY.P.O.,
PIN-686 635, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SHRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SHRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY
SMT.BINCY JOB
SMT.NEEMA NEERACKAL
SHRI.AMBADI DINESH L.K.
SHRI.K.S. SANDEEP
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
31.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:7998
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. No.355 of 2022
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale
was rejected by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, as barred by limitation.
2. The agreement sought to be enforced in the suit is dated
15.03.2012. The suit is filed only on 02.12.2021. Under the
agreement, the period fixed for performance was six months.
3. The plaint allegation is that, though the plaintiffs were
ready and willing to proceed with the agreement, the defendant
was postponing the execution. On the last date for compliance of
the agreement viz. 14.09.2012, the defendant disclosed that there
are some mistakes in the survey numbers relating to the property.
It was agreed that the property would be conveyed as soon as the
said mistake is corrected. The plaintiffs having paid ₹ 20 lakhs
2026:KER:7998
towards advance sale consideration agreed to the defendants'
request. It was agreed that the property would be conveyed on
curing the defects in the survey numbers. Though the defendant
was approached on various occasions, the plaintiffs were told
that the process of correction was not completed. The suit has
been filed alleging that on 25.11.2021 plaintiff got reliable
information that the defendant is attempting to sell the
properties to third parties in breach of the agreement with the
plaintiffs.
4. The trial court held that the plaint does not disclose
about any agreement extending the period for performance and that
no document evidencing such extension is produced. The trial
court held that the plaint does not even contain even a plea of
an oral agreement extending the period. Accordingly, the court
proceeded to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
5. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
6. Limitation is generally considered to be a mixed question
of law and fact. Of course there would be cases where limitation
would be apparent even on the plaint averments. When ex facie the
suit is beyond the prescribed period of limitation the plaint is
2026:KER:7998
liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
7. Under the agreement for sale in question, an amount of
₹ 20 lakhs is claimed to have been paid as advance sale
consideration. It is so recited in the agreement. At paragraph 12
of the plaint, it is pleaded thus:-
"12. However, the defendant assured the plaintiffs that he had already initiated
proceedings to correct the survey numbers and the property will be conveyed to
the plaintiffs, even though the same may not be possible within the period of
agreement. The plaintiffs expressed its displeasure and anguish on the conduct
of the defendant, however, have to agree for the same as the plaintiffs had
already parted with a huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance sale consideration,
as per the agreement for sale dated 15.03.2012. Therefore, both the plaintiffs
and defendant agreed to extent the period of agreement to such period as may be
required by the defendant to correct the mistake in survey numbers and to
execute sale deed after curing the defects, as originally agreed as per the
agreement........"
The above is a plea varying the period of performance of the
agreement; the time for performance is fixed as, as and when the
mistake in the survey numbers is got corrected by the defendant.
If the plaintiffs are able to prove such an agreement, then how
far the plea of limitation would succeed is to be considered.
Whether there has been an agreement in the manner as pleaded by
the plaintiffs, is a matter of evidence. In the light of the
2026:KER:7998
specific plea in the plaint varying the period for performance,
we are of the view that, ex facie it could not be held that the
suit is barred by limitation. We find that the rejection of the
plaint on the ground of limitation is liable to be interfered
with.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order rejecting
the plaint is set aside. The suit is restored and remanded back
to the trial court. The trial court shall proceed to dispose of
the suit in accordance with law. The fee paid on the memorandum
of appeal shall be refunded to the appellants.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
