S. Sankarasubban, J.

This appeal is filed against' die judgment and decree in O.S.No.857 of 1981 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The appellant is the additional third plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by late Alexander Palathinkal and his, son for specific performance of the agreement, Ext.A5, dated 5.3.1984 entered into by the said Alexander Palathinkal and his son with the first defendant - Church represented by its Vicar and Trustees. As per the agreement, respondents 1 to 8 herein had agreed to convey the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.3,47,500/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as advance. As per the agreement, the sale was to be effected on or before 5.9.1984. The plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The suit was necessitated on the failure of the respondents to perform their part.

3. The plaintiffs issued Ext.A6 notice to the defendants, which was replied by Ext.A7. The execution of the agreement is admitted by the defendants. As regards the execution of the sale deed, it was disclosed in the reply notice that the sale deed can be executed after getting the sanction from the venerable Curia of Verapoly Archdiocese and that there is difficulty to get the sanction in view of the objections raised by some Parishioners. It was further stated that the demand for measuring the property before getting the sanction is not justified.

4. The court below found that the agreement was validly executed and that the, plaintiffs were ready, and willing. But the court below dismissed the suit on the ground that sanction from' Venerable Curia of Verapoly Archdiocese was not obtained. A decree was passed for Rs.10,000/- with interest. It is against the above judgment and decree that the present appeal is filed.

5. We heard learned counsel for the appellants add learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Ext.A5 is the agreement executed between defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff. In Ext.A5, defendants 1 to 4 are referred to as, first party and the plaintiff is the second party. Paragraph 2 of the agreement states that the first party decided to sell the schedule property and the building to the 'second party and the conditions of the sale are as follows: The property which is the subject matter is 13 cents and 100 sq. links. The price is fixed at Rs.25,000/- per cent and the building is valued at Rs.20,000/-. The first party has agreed to sell and the second party has agreed to purchase. An advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was given on the date of the agreement. Paragraph 4 states that the first party, viz. defendants 1 to 4 therein are competent to execute the sale deed on behalf of the Church and there is no encumbrance over the property. The sale deed is to be executed within six months. The agreement stipulates other conditions regarding the liability to execute the sale deed, etc.

7. Since on the basis of Ext.A5, the deed was not executed, the plaintiff sent a lawyer notice to defendants 1 to 4, copy of which is produced as Ext.A6. Ext.A6 requests defendants, 1 to 4 to arrange for the execution of the sale deed. Ext.A7 is the reply to Ext.A6 notice. The execution of the agreement is accepted. But it is stated in the notice that for executing the document permission of Venerable Curia of Verapoly Archdiocese is necessary. But due to unexpected objections raised by some Parishioners, there was difficulty in obtaining necessary sanction and this fact was intimated to the plaintiff in writing on 28.3.1984. . '

8. The court below considered this question and was of the view that since the sanction from the Venerable Curia of Verapoly Archdocese was not obtained, the sale deed cannot be executed. It is further stated that under Canon law, sanction from Venerable, Curia of Verapoly Archdiocese is necessary. The pl