IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of good faith, absence of notice, and delay in filing the suit, which disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

The defeated plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant before this Court. The pointed question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether after a lapse of near 40 years of the execution of the agreement of sale, this Court should grant a decree for specific performance in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The success of the plaintiff in this appeal would depend only if multiple points are found in his favour.

2. The present appeal, AS No.919/1996, arises from the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1992 in OS No.193/1988 on the files of Additional Subordinate Court, Irinjalakuda. The above OS was disposed of along with OS No.364/1986, which was filed by respondents 3 to 6 herein, who are defendants 3 to 6 in OS No.193/1988. The appellant herein was the 1st defendant in OS No.364/1986. Even though, an appeal was preferred as AS No.905/1995, before this Court, the same was dismissed for default as per judgment dated 21.3.2013. Till today it is not restored to file. The impact of the dismissal of the AS No 905 of 1998 for default will be discussed later in this Judgment.

3. OS No.364/1986 was filed for an injunction against the plaintiff in OS No.193/1988 from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. After two years on filing of OS No 364/1986, the plaintiff in OS No.193/1988 claimed specific performance of Ext.A2 agreement executed between the plaintiff and Gopala Menon and Kochu Govinda Menon who are defendants 1 and 2, respectively. Plaintiffs in OS No.364/1986 are the assignees from defendants 1 and 2. Their assignments were in the year 1986. Apprehending that the plaintiff in OS No.193/1988 will trespass into the property and disturb their peaceful possession, OS No.364/1986 was filed.

4. The plaint averments in OS No.193/1988 shows that the plaintiff along with defendants 1 and 2 entered into a Karar with one Mr.Mambilly Thomas on 29.9.1984 as per which the said Mambilly Thomas had agreed to assign 66.7 cents of land in favour of plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.13,34,000/-. The plaint schedule property covers an extent of 35.7 cents in Sy No.262/1 of Lokamaleswaram Village forming part of larger extent of 66.7 cents in the same survey number which is the subject matter of the agreement dated 29.9.1984. It is further averred in the plaint that the entire 66.7 cents of land in Sy.No.262/1 of Lokamaleswaram Village was in possession of the plaintiff since Mambilly Thomas had done the sale. 96 cents in Sy.No.559/6 of Pullut Village was also subject matter of the Karar on 29.9.1984. Out of the said 96 cents, 48 cents was purchased by the plaintiff in his own name and 48 cents purchased by the plaintiff in the names of defendants 1 & 2, since he had borrowed money from them earlier in June, 1983 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. Therefore, for balance 35.7 cents mentioned in the plaint schedule, the plaintiff and Mambilly Thomas executed two deeds of exchange in respect of 31 cents in Sy.No.262/1 of Lokamaleswaram Village on 22.7.1985 and 6.9.1985 and these documents have been registered as document Nos.2454 and 2842 of 1985 of Kodungallur Village. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff on 20.9.1985 had agreed to convey the said item which was nominally to purchase from Mambilly Thomas in pursuance to the karar dated 29.9.1984 and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3,41,300/-to defendants 1 and 2. Rs.2,48,900/-was paid to the 2nd defendant and Rs.92,400/-was paid to the 1st defendant. On 13.12.1985, Mambilly Thomas and defendants 1 and 2 together executed an exchange deed assigning items mentioned in the schedule in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in consideration of them assigning 48 cents in Sy.No.559/6 of Pullut Village, which stood in their names. The entire amount due to Mambilly Thomas being the difference in the price of two items of properties to be exchanged as per karar dated 29.9.1984 was paid only by the plaintiff. The original karar dated 29.9.1984 was also in