Court established payment of advance sale consideration supports plaintiff's claim, while rejecting defendant's contention of no payment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 RFA NO. 245 OF 2017 (E)

AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2015 IN OS NO.256 OF 2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

1 M/S.PEEVEES ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M.V. MAHAMOOD, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O P.V. IBRAHIM, 37/1094-D, STERLING ESTATE, KUMARANASAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, NOW RESIDING AT 44/2286 B, EBUS NEST, ELLIPARAMBU LANE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR-682 017

2 M.V. MAHAMOOD AGED 58 YEARS S/O P.V. IBRAHIM, 37/1094-D, STERLING ESTATE, KUMARANASAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17, NOW RESIDING AT 44/2286 B, EBUS NEST, ELLIPARAMBU LANE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR-682 017 BY ADVS.

SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SMT.P.SEENA SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA MOULAVI, CHATHOTH MOOTTUMMAL, PULOOPI, KANNADIPPARAMBU AMSOM, KANNUR - 673443 BY ADVS.

SHRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SHRI.NELSON ABRAHAM THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

19.03.2026, THE COURT ON 24.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

R.F.A.No.245 OF 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The defendant in a suit for return of money on the basis of an agreement for sale is the appellant. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and the appellant was thereby directed to pay ₹1 crore with 6% interest to the respondent. The said judgment and decree is under challenge in this appeal.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff contended that the defendant (the proprietary concern of the second defendant is shown as the first defendant in the plaint) is the owner in possession of 59 cents of land together with a building and the machinery therein. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he required money to discharge certain liabilities with the State Bank of Travancore, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property within a period of four months for ₹2 crores and to pay ₹1 crore as advance sale consideration. Accordingly, they executed Ext.A1 agreement for sale on 26.03.2007. On that day, the plaintiff paid ₹80,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and further agreed to pay the balance advance of ₹20,00,000/- on 20.04.2007. On the same day, they executed a separate agreement (Ext.A2), agreeing that if the defendant repaid ₹1 crore within four months, the plaintiff would not proceed with the agreement for sale. The plaintiff further contended that he paid the balance advance of ₹20,00,000/- on 23.05.2007, evidenced by Ext.A3 receipt issued by the defendant. Alleging that the defendant was not ready to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff initially instituted the suit for a relief of specific performance of the contract, with an alternative relief of return of the advance money paid. Later, the suit was amended and the relief was confined to return of the advance amount of ₹1 crore.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that, as he was in severe financial crisis, he executed Exts.A1 and A2 in anticipation of receiving ₹1 crore from the plaintiff.

However, contrary to the assurance, no amount was paid to the defendant even though he executed the said agreements. The defendant further contended that Ext.A3 is a fabricated document created by the plaintiff using a blank paper on which the defendant was compelled to sign, at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirur, before whom the plaintiff