The appellate court must deny new evidence unless specific procedural conditions are met, ensuring fair consideration based only on original trial submissions.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.45 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, challenging the decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in that suit.

2. The basic facts necessary for deciding this first appeal are as follows:

The 3^rd defendant is a company engaged in the business of the construction of apartments. 4^th defendant is the Managing Director of the 3^rd defendant company. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property belonged to the 3^rd defendant company. Defendants 1 and 2 purchased fractional right over item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and the right to construct the flat in the said property by virtue of Ext.A2 sale deed bearing No.1546/2004 of S.R.O. Thiruvalla dated 25.05.2004. Later, defendants 3 and 4 sold the very same fractional right over item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and item No.2, to the plaintiff, as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 19.03.2008, registered as document No.900/2008 of S.R.O. Thiruvalla. It is pleaded in the plaint that defendants 3 and 4 had undertaken to construct the flat bearing No.IV/B on the 4^th floor of the building. When the plaintiff realised that defendants 3 and 4 would not complete the construction as agreed, the plaintiff, utilising her own funds, constructed item No. 2 flat by spending Rs. 31,88,025/-. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the plaint schedule properties by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed by paying the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereafter, over and above the said amount, she spent Rs.31,88,025/- for the construction of the flat due to the default on the part of defendants 3 and 4.

2.1. It is further pleaded in the suit that defendants 1 and 2, who are total strangers to the plaintiff, instituted O.S.No.357 of 2011 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvalla, against defendants 3 and 4, and the Secretary of the residents association of the apartment, wherein item No.2 flat forms part. The plaintiff then got herself impleaded as the additional 4^th defendant in the said suit. On perusal of the averments in O.S.No.357 of 2011, the plaintiff came to know about Ext.A2 sale deed previously executed by defendants 3 and 4 in favour of defendants 1 and 2, whereby the right over item No.1 and right over 37.92 sq. mtrs. of land was sold for a sum of Rs.74,966/- and also undertaken to construct a flat within a specified time. However, no such flat was constructed by defendants 3 and 4 within the agreed time.

2.2. The plaintiff states that at the time of executing Ext.A1 sale deed, the construction of CVP Parliament Square Annex A Apartment, the construction of which was undertaken by defendants 3 and 4, did not begin. After Ext.A2 sale deed, neither defendants 1 and 2, nor defendants 3 and 4 constructed item No.2 flat and the construction of which was done by the plaintiff through a contractor by the name Mr.David M.Jacob during the period between 2010 and 2013.

2.3. The plaintiff further states that since defendants 3 and 4 failed to carry out the flat construction as agreed, defendants 1 and 2 initiated civil proceedings against defendants 3 and 4 to recover the money they paid. Defendants 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.57 of 2006, O.S.No.74 of 2006 and O.S.No.53 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, for realisation of the money and all those suits were decreed on 10.11.2007 based on Ext.A3 award passed in the Adalath conducted by the Legal Services Authority. As per the award, defendants 1 and 2 are left with the right to realise the decree amount of Rs.26,00,000/- along with 6% interest. Therefore, the right now the def