V.K. Bali, C.J.

In the context of the facts of the present case, one of the questions that needs adjudication is as to whether when there is no dispute on facts and on such undisputed facts there may be an argument leading to an irresistible conclusion one way or the other, should the parties even in the matter of contract, be relegated to vindicate their stand by a civil suit. Before we might comment upon and determine the question framed above, it would be useful to extract a resume of facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal by the appellant, who was the petitioner in the original lis, and by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has indeed been asked to substantiate her stand before a civil court.

2. Grace Joseph, the appellant herein, it appears, could scarcely collect funds enough to buy a small dwelling house only when she retired as the Headmistress of Kendriya Vidyalaya in the year 1991. She made an application for allotment of a plot of land with building on it offered by the Kerala State Housing Board, arrayed as second respondent in the writ petition under the Gandhi Nagar Housing Scheme. The plot was selected on the basis of the repaying capacity of the petitioner. She was allotted plot No.A5-94 with A-5 type of building and an agreement for sale was entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent on 8.4.1992 detailing various stipulations. A copy of the agreement has been placed on record as Ext.P2. The cost details of the property purchased by her from the 2nd respondent, as per agreement, Ext.P2 are as follows:

Cost of Building Rs.86,992/-

Cost of land Rs.31,260/-

Total Rs.1,18,252/-

Extent of land 132.405 M2

Cost per M2 Rs.239.09

(Approx.9443.75 per cent)”.

The amount of Rs.1,18,252/- was paid by the petitioner in 24 instalments and by 6.7.1994, the entire payments were completed and even as per the ledger maintained by the respondent, no amounts were outstanding from her. Despite the fact that the petitioner had made payments of every penny due to the second respondent by way of instalments, the second respondent failed to transfer ownership of the property and the building in the name of the petitioner. She was, however, orally informed that the claims of the original land owners from whom land was acquired for the said scheme under which the petitioner was allotted plot have preferred appeals and hence there would be an increase in the land value, which would be determined only after the final disposal of the above cases. The petitioner was, in the manner aforesaid, under the bona fide belief that the second respondent has informed her about the correct position of the litigation initiated by the land owners. To the dismay of the petitioner, however, she later learnt that the stand of the second respondent with regard to the pending cases relating to enhancement of compensation by the land owners was totally a falsehood and that the second respondent was fully aware as to what was the compensation to be paid by the second respondent far before when Ext.P2 agreement was executed. It is the positive case of the petitioner that in the year 2003 she came to know that the second respondent was taking everybody for a ride since not even a single land owner has filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation and further that the cost of land had become final as on 5.12.1999, i.e., the date of last judgment in various LAR cases. In the meantime, when the respondents failed to execute sale deed, petitioner requested them to execute the same. The reminders and representations made by the petitioner fell on deaf ears. The second respondent neither informed the petitioner about the outcome of the appeals filed for enhancement of compensation by landowners nor executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Even though, therefore, the land value of the plot purchased by the petitioner was fixed as on the date of agreement, the second respondent kept postponing fixation of la