The main legal point established in the judgment is that a contract for the sale of immovable property was found to be enforceable despite the defendant's deliberate inaction and ulterior motive to avoid the contract.

Plaintiff in O.S. No. 142 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Quilon is the appellant. Suit is for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property.

2. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement Ext. Al dated 29th September, 1976 whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase and defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Defendant had obtained a preliminary decree in O.S, 11.1 of 1972 on the file of Sub Court, Quilon, for partition and recovery of possession, which declared that plaintiff got 171/210 shares in the plaint schedule property, which had an extent of 15 cents. Defendant made the plaintiff to believe that defendant was taking steps before the execution court for recovery of possession. It is this property that was agreed to be sold and the defendant received Rs.1,001/- towards advance from the plaintiff. The agreement also provided that the defendant on recovery of possession of the property through court would issue notice to plaintiff and that plaintiff should be ready to pay the balance of consideration and to obtain the sale deed within one month from the date of receipt of notice. Defendant informed plaintiff that he applied for passing of final decree in O.S. No .111 of 1972. However, plaintiff came to know that defendant was taking steps to alienate the property to a stranger. Thereupon, plaintiff filed O.S.No.591 of 1977 before Munsiff s Court, Quilon seeking an injunction, restraining defendant from executing the sale deed or agreement to any person, other than plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property or any portion thereof. Defendant filed a written statement in the said suit admitting the agreement executed by him in favour of plaintiff and stating that he had no idea to sell the property to strangers, that he was willing to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and that he would give notice to plaintiff on getting delivery of his share through court. On the basis of the averments made by defendant, plaintiff did not press the suit and it was dismissed. The application filed by defendant for passing the final decree was posted on several occasions for depositing the commission batta, but defendant wilfully did not deposit the commission batta. Plaintiff approached defendant and told him that he would pay the commission batta and meet other expenses for conducting the final decree application, but defendant refused to accept that offer. The attempt of defendant was to protract the matter. The application filed by defendant was dismissed for nonpayment of batta. Plaintiff issued notice to defendant stating that he was prepared to pay the balance of sale consideration and to continue the final decree proceedings and enquiring whether he was prepared to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant did not send a reply to the said notice. It was the duty of defendant to issue notice in terms of the agreement after obtaining recovery of possession of the property by virtue of the decree in O.S.No.111 of 1972. Plaintiff averred that he had every right to waive the liability of defendant to prosecute the final decree proceedings and get delivery of the property and of issue notice of such delivery to plaintiff. Plaintiff was ready and willing to obtain the sale deed on payment of Rs.38,999/- towards the balance of consideration, but defendant was not prepared to accede to the request of plain tiff and hence the suit.

3.. Defendant in his written statement admitted that he was the 1st plaintiff and his two brothers and mother were plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.lll of 19.72 on the file of Sub Court, Quilon and a preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.lll of 1972on 20-12-1975 declaring their rights to 171/210 shares over the plaint schedule property and allowing them to get it separated by metes and bounds and to recover possession through court. He averred that defendants 5 and 7 to 11 prepared an appeal, A.S.