JUDGMENT :

This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short), challenging the decree and judgment dated 20.10.2004 in A.S.No.88/2000 on the files of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda and also the decree and judgment dated 29.02.2000 in O.S.No.1322/1998 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The original appellant herein is the 2nd defendant in the above suit and the respondents are the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the additional appellants, who are the legal heirs of Manicka Sachindranath, the original 2nd defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Sankunni, the original plaintiff.

3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff/Sankunni', 1st defendant/Gopinathan' and 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath' for convenience.

4. This is a suit filed, seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to be executed between the plaintiff/Sankunni and 1st defendant/Gopinathan on 27.03.1998. According to the plaintiff/Sankunni, on receipt of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) as advance, the 1st defendant/Gopinathan agreed to execute sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property for a total consideration Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with undertaking to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only), at the time of execution of the sale deed. After impleadment of the 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath, who purchased the property in the interregnum, the plaint was amended, contending that two documents executed in between the 1st defendant/ Gopinathan and the 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath were concocted documents generated to defeat the interest of the plaintiff/Sankunni.

5. The 1st defendant/Gopinathan filed written statement and denied the execution of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff/Sankunni and the contention raised by the 1st defendant/Gopinathan was that he borrowed Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) from the plaintiff/Sankunni on 01.05.1997 and he had entrusted signed blank papers as security for the amount. Later, those signed blank papers were misused for the purpose of creating the agreement.

6. The 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath, on impleadment, also filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the 1st defendant/Gopinathan executed an agreement as early on 03.05.1997 in favour of the 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath agreeing to execute sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was paid as advance. Later, the 1st defendant/Gopinathan executed sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant/Manicka Sachindranath, vide sale deed No.1495/1998 of SRO Irinjalakuda and therefore, the reliefs sought for were opposed.

7. The court below raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW1 to PW3 examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. DW1 and DW2 examined and Exts.B1 to B8 series were marked. Exts.X1 to X1(b) series were also marked.

8. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court decreed the suit, granting the relief of specific performance.

9. On appeal before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, the appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial court.

10. It is discernible that as on 31.03.2005, my learned predecessor admitted this appeal on substantial questions of law 1 and 2 raised in the appeal memorandum without formulating the same and the same are as under :

“(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below were right in decreeing the suit appellant when there was neither a prayer for such relief nor any contractual relationship between the appellant and the plaintiff?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Court below were right in granting a decree against the appellant who is a bonafide purc