Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10581 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 23918 OF 2012)

MANOHARAN …APPELLANT

Vs.

SIVARAJAN & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.Gopala Gowda J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal is filed by the appellant

questioning the correctness of the judgment and

final Order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 678 of 2011

Page 2

JUDGMENT

C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012

urging various facts and legal contentions in

justification of his claim.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to

appreciate the case of the appellant and also to

find out whether the appellant is entitled for the

relief as prayed in this appeal.

The appellant approached the respondent no. 1 -

a money lender, for a loan of

2,20,000/-. The

respondent no. 1 agreed to give him the loan in

return of execution of a sale deed with respect to 3

cents of land in re-survey No. 111/13-1 in Block No.

12 of Maranalloor village by the appellant in his

favour. It was agreed upon between the parties that

the respondent no. 1 will reconvey the property in

favour of the appellant on repayment of the loan.

The appellant accordingly executed sale deed No. 575

of 2001 at sub Registrar’s office at Ooruttambalam

with respect to 3 cents of land in Re-survey

No.111/13-1 in Block no.12 of Maranalloor village in

- 2-

Page 3

JUDGMENT

C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012

favour of respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1

executed an agreement of re-conveyance deed in

favour of the appellant regarding the above

mentioned property on the same day.

4. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Basanth R.

appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the

appellant approached the respondent no.1 several

times with money for re-conveying the property in

favour of the appellant as was agreed upon between

them but the respondent no. 1 evaded from doing so.

5. It is also the case of the appellant that

respondent no.1, instead of issuing a deed of re-

conveyance, sold the property to Respondent nos. 2

and 3 without the knowledge of the appellant. The

appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent no.1

requesting him to appear before the sub Registrar’s

office for the execution of re-conveyance deed

regarding the plaint schedule property to which the

respondent no. 1 did not oblige. The appellant then

- 3-

Page 4

JUDGMENT

C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012

filed a suit being OS No. 141/2007 before the Court

of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara for mandatory injunction,

for declaration of the sale deed executed by

Respondent no.1 in favour of Respondent nos. 2 and 3

as null and void, for execution of re-conveyance deed

in his favour and also for consequential reliefs. The

suit was valued at

3,03,967/- and the court fee was

valued at

28,797/-. The appellant paid 1/10^th of the

court fee i.e.,

2880/- at the time of filing the

suit. The Court of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara granted

injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the

respondents from carrying out new construction

activities including the parts of the plaint schedule

property until further orders.

6. The court of sub Judge, Neyyattinkara heard the

application for extension of time sought by the

appellant for paying the balance court fee. However,

the application was rejected and the file was closed

by the learned sub Judge. The appellant then filed

Regular First Appeal No. 678 of 2011 along with an

- 4-

Page 5

JUDGMENT

C.A.@ SLP© No.23918 of 2012

application for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal. The High Court dismissed the application for

condonation of delay on the ground that the delay in

filing the appeal was not explained by the appellant

and conseq