The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation, and there was no delay or laches on the part of the plaintiff. The agreement was not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, and the plaintiff had performed his part of the contract, leading to the Court decreeing the suit for specific performance.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

The above appeal is preferred by defendants 2,3 and 5 to 8 in O.S. No. 51 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam against the judgment and Decree in that case. First respondent is the plaintiff, while respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 4,9 and 10 in the suit. The Suit, O.S. No. 51 of 1987 was filed for specific performance of an agreement and directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of 96 cents of land scheduled in the plaint and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from trespassing upon plaint schedule item No.1 and for other reliefs. The averments in the plaint are as follows:

2. Plaintiff and the first defendant were known to each other for a long time. On 27th April 1982, they entered into an agreement for mutual exchange of properties. Plaintiff had in his possession, control and enjoyment of 12 acres of plantation in Poonjar Thekkekara Village and the first defendant had 96 cents of land at Palai within Palai Town. These properties were to be transferred by both and an agreement was made accordingly. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was to pay to the first defendant additionally an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as equalisation of value. According to the plaintiff, on the date of execution of the agreement, a amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid. Further, if is stated that possession of each plot was taken by either parties. No specific date was mentioned in the agreement for execution of registered documents.

3. In September, 1982, the first defendant expressed his willingness to take the documents in respect of Poonjar Thekkekara property in the name of his son and two daughters. As a matter of fact, the title to 12 acres was not with the plaintiff and he got possession and enjoyment of the property on the basis of an agreement dated 10th January 1982 between himself and J.J. Construction Company. As per the suggestion of the first defendant, three documents were prepared on 20tn September 1982 and registered on 6th November 1982 at the Sub Registry Office, Poonjar. One document was executed in the name of Jinsymol, the daughter of the first defendant, another document was executed in the name of John Thomas, the son of the first defendant and the last document was executed in the name of Jayamma, another daughter of the first defendant. The total area covered by the above three documents was 11.08 acres and virivu coming to a total extent of 12 acres.

4. Whenever the plaintiff met the first defendant he used to assure that he will execute the documents very soon. In April, 1986, ie., on 5th April 1986, the plaintiff approached the first defendant to get the sale deed executed. First defendant agreed to execute, but requested for some time because of his sickness and physical disability. On 1st December 1986 when the first defendant was free from his ailments, the plaintiff again approached him. Then the first defendant put forward some lame excuse and he wanted to protract the matter. On 23rd December 1986, the plaintiff issued a notice through his advocate giving 15 days time for the execution of the documents. First defendant sent a reply arising all sorts of frivolous contentions. Before the institution of the plaint, the first defendant attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property. It was stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his party of the contract. Hence, the suit was filed.

5. Defendants 1. to 4 filed a joint written statement. The execution of the agreement dated 27th April 1982 is admitted. It was submitted that the plaintiff was a full confident of the first defendant. The agreement was entered into at the instance of the plaintiff and on the basis of the representation made by the plaintiff. First defendant was, for a long time, bed-ridden and he was made to believe that the plaintiff had got 13 acres of well maintained and high yielding rubber plantation in Poonjar Thekkekara Village and worth Rs. 1,00,000 per acr