MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJIversusSAKEENA BEEVI

                  [2026] 1 S.C.R. 395 : 2026 INSC 35

               Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji
                                v.
                         Sakeena Beevi
                       (Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022)
                               07 January 2026
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial
       Court as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection
       of the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by
       the appellant; whether the issue of readiness and willingness was
       also wrongly decided against the appellant and in favour of the
       defendant-respondent; whether the High Court committed grave
       error in the facts as well as in law in dismissing the appeal filed
       by the appellant and affirming the judgment of the trial Court.

                                  Headnotes†
       Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for specific performance of
       agreement to sell – Rejection of, when not justified – After the
       death of the defendant-respondent’s father, the plaint schedule
       property together with the school building standing thereon
       and all appurtenant improvements, including ownership and
       management of the school, devolved upon his nine children,
       including the defendant-respondent – All the nine legal heirs
       executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) in favour
       of the eldest son who executed an agreement for sale (Exh. A1)
       in favour of the appellant, the date of execution whereunder
       was extended thrice – Respondent revoked the unregistered
       power of attorney (Exh. A4) issued in favour of her brother –
       Later, she executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power
       of attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out thereunder, and
       further expressing her consent to transfer her share in the
       plaint schedule property – Thereafter, the remaining eight
       siblings executed a sale deed conveying their collective
       10/11th share in the entire chunk of land on which the school
       building exists in favour of the appellant – However, later as
       the respondent refused to execute the sale deed in respect of
       her share, the appellant filed suit for specific performance –
       Dismissed by trial Court on the ground of limitation – Appellant
* Author
396                                                              [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       filed appeal before High Court, dismissed on the grounds of
       lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellant
       to get the sale deed executed as well as on the ground of
       limitation – Interference with:
       Held: Impugned judgments set aside – High Court erred in the facts
       as well as in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant
       and affirming the judgment of the trial Court – The factum of three
       extensions stands duly proved by the appellant – Also, the theory
       projected by the respondent that the power of attorney executed
       by her in favour of her brother stood revoked is ex facie untenable
       and contrary to the record – The affidavit (Exh. A5) executed by
       the defendant which was neither disputed nor denied tilts the
       balance in favour of the appellant which clearly establish that the
       respondent not only ratified the acts performed by the power of
       attorney holder, her brother but also expressly conveyed her no-
       objection to the change in management and so also the ownership
       of the school and the properties appurtenant thereto in favour of
       the appellant – Once the two facts, i.e., the publication of notice in
       the year 2012 for revocation of the unregistered power of attorney
       (Exh. A4) and the affidavit dtd.30.04.13 are cumulatively taken into
       account, limitation would start running from the later date because
       it is, at that stage, that the respondent finally refused execution of
       sale deed to the extent of her share in the suit property – Thus,
       the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial Court
       as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection of
       the suit instituted by the appellant – The suit was instituted within
       the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the date of
       the affidavit – On facts, the issue of readiness and willingness
       was also wrongly decided against the appellant and in favour of
       the respondent – Appellant entitled to conveyance of the 1/11th
       share of the respondent in the plaint schedule property – Further
       directions issued – Limitation Act, 1963 – Kerala Education Rules,
       1959 – Kerala Education Rules, 2005. [Paras 34-41]

                                   List of Acts
       Specific Relief Act, 1963; Kerala Education Rules, 1959; Limitation
       Act, 1963; Kerala Education Rules, 2005.

                                List of Keywords
       Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell; Unjustified
       rejection of the suit for specific performance of agreement to
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                               397

           Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


       sell; Suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation;
       Readiness and willingness; Power of attorney not revoked;
       Revocation of the unregistered power of attorney; Acts performed
       by the power of attorney holder ratified.

                                          Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3894
       of 2022
       From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2020 of the High Court
       of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 267 of 2016
       With
       Civil Appeal No. 3895 of 2022

                                     Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K Joy,
       Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Mrs. Devika A.L., Nishe Rajen Shonker.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, R. NedumarSan, Sr. Advs., Manas P.
       Hameed, Ms. Ipsita Ojal, Jude James, Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep
       Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh, Anshul Saharan.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

       Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022

1.     Heard.
2.     The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
       dated 16th October, 2020, passed by the High Court of Kerala at
       Ernakulam1 in R.F.A. No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal
       preferred by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji2 came to be


1    Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.
398                                                             [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                                      Supreme Court Reports


        dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th October,
        2015, rendered by the Sub-Judge, Chavakkad3 in Original Suit No.862
        of 2013, by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant seeking
        specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed.

        Factual Background
3.      Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the
        appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4.      The plaint schedule property admeasuring approximately three acres
        thirty-five cents fell to the share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil
        Seethi Thangal (hereinafter ‘Seethi Thangal’), father of the
        respondent–Sakeena Beevi 4, by virtue of a registered partition
        deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in the office of the Sub-
        Registrar, Mullassery.
5.      Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal on 22 nd August, 2002,
        the plaint schedule property, comprised in Survey No. 116/7 of
        Kundazhiyoor Desom, together with the school building standing
        thereon and all appurtenant improvements, including ownership
        and management of the school, devolved upon his nine children,
        including the defendant-respondent.
6.      All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal executed an unregistered
        power of attorney (Exh. A4) in favour of the eldest son, Shri
        Muhammed Rafi Thangal, on 3rd September, 2002. Subsequently,
        on 4th September, 2002, the respondent Sakeena Beevi executed
        a separate registered power of attorney (Exh. B1) in favour of her
        son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1).
7.      The eldest brother, namely, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, executed
        an agreement for sale (Exh. A1) dated 14th May, 2007 in favour of the
        plaintiff-appellant for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. A sum
        of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as an advance at the time of execution
        of the agreement. The date of execution under the agreement
        (Exh. A1) was extended on three occasions, i.e., on 14th April, 2008
        [Exh. A1(a)], 7th August, 2010 [Exh. A1(b)], and 7th July, 2011 [Exh.
        A1(c)]. On 14th November, 2012, the defendant-respondent caused


3    Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4      Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                            399

        Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


     publication of a newspaper notice revoking the unregistered power of
     attorney (Exh. A4) issued in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
8.   On 30th April, 2013, the defendant-respondent executed an affidavit
     (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried
     out thereunder, and further expressing her consent to transfer her
     share in the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, on 8th May, 2013,
     the remaining eight siblings executed a sale deed conveying their
     collective 10/11th share in the entire chunk of land on which the
     school building exists in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
9.   As the defendant-respondent refused to execute the sale deed in
     respect of her share, the plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for specific
     performance in the year 2013, which came to be registered as O.S.
     No. 862 of 2013 before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30th
    October, 2015, primarily on the ground of limitation, and consequently
    denied the relief of specific performance as well as the alternate relief
    of refund of the advance amount to the plaintiff-appellant.
11. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff–appellant preferred an appeal before
    the High Court, which, while reversing certain findings recorded by
    the trial Court, ultimately dismissed the suit on the grounds of lack
    of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff-appellant to
    get the sale deed executed, as required under the Specific Relief
    Act, 1963, as well as on the ground of limitation.
12. The High Court held that the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish his
    continued readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It was
    observed that the payments made and the endorsements extending
    the agreement were obtained only from Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,
    the brother of the defendant–respondent, who lacked valid authority
    to execute and extend the contract after the defendant–respondent
    had executed a registered power of attorney (Exh.B1) in favour of
    her son Shri Rafeeq Ahmed (DW-1) thereby, by a deeming fiction,
    revoking the earlier unregistered power of attorney. Consequently,
    the payments made to Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal were held not
    to be binding on the defendant–respondent.
13. The High Court further held that the agreement had become time-
    barred, observing that the breach on the part of the plaintiff-appellant
    occurred on 14th July, 2008, whereas the suit came to be instituted
400                                                         [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       in the year 2013, well beyond the period of three years prescribed
       under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
14. The above judgment of the High Court is the subject matter of
    challenge in the present appeal by way of special leave.
15. It needs to be noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the
    parties were referred to mediation; however, the mediation efforts
    did not fructify in a settlement. Further, during the course of the
    hearing, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for
    the plaintiff-appellant, on instructions, offered a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-
    to the defendant-respondent, as fair value for her 1/11th share which
    offer was declined outright.

       Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant
16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
    plaintiff-appellant urged that although the plaintiff-appellant could
    have relinquished the said 1/11th share of the defendant-respondent in
    plaint schedule property, such a course would render the functioning
    of the school unviable and in breach of the requirements under the
    Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which mandates a minimum extent
    of three acres of land for running a higher secondary school.
17. Shri Agrawal drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit (Exh. A5)
    dated 30th April, 2013 sworn by the defendant-respondent, whereby
    the agreement in favour of the plaintiff–appellant was affirmed and
    ratified. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) is an admitted document and
    reads as under: -
            “I, Mrs. B.V. Sakeena Beevi, aged 59 years, presently
            residing at Bukharyil Valapil House, W/o Fakrudheen
            Thangal, Bukharayil Ayittandiyil, Mathilakam Post - 680
            685 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
            That myself one the legal heirs of deceased Mr. B.V.
            seethe Thangal, Ex. M.L.A., along with other legal heirs,
            had executed a valid power of attorney in favour of Mr. B.V.
            Muhammed Raphy Thangal, residing at Bukharayil Valappil
            house, Venkitangu, P.O. Padoor, on 3rd September 2002
            regarding the property in Re-Survey No. 116/7 in Padoor
            Desam, Situated within the Mullassery Sub registrar Office.
            While the Power of Attorney to various officials including
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                            401

        Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


           the Assistant Educational Officer, Mullassery. Now we
           have amicably settled all disputes and I hereby ratify
           the acts of the said Power of Attorney Holder Mr. B.V.
           Muhammed Raphy Thangal. I have no objection to
           perform all acts, deeds and things as assigned in the
           said Power of Attorney Holder Mr. B.V. Muhammed
           Raphy Thangal. I have no objection to perform all acts,
           deeds and things as assigned in the said Power of
           Attorney by me. I do hereby undertake to carry out the
           terms and conditions set out in the said Power of Attorney
           by me. I do hereby undertake to carry out the terms and
           conditions set out in the said Power of Attorney and I will be
           personally bound by the terms and also I will be personally
           present whenever necessary. I have no objections in
           changing management involving ownership of Aleemul
           Islam Higher Secondary School, and ownership of
           properties of the above said school, in favour of Mr.
           Ahammed Haji, S/o Moidunni, Muslim Veettil Chalakkal
           House, Kundaliyoor desom, Engandiyoor amsom,
           as already submitted through my power of attorney
           holder.
           What is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge
           and belief.
           Dated this the 30th day of April, 2013.”
                                                  [Emphasis supplied]

18. Shri Agrawal contended that once the defendant–respondent had
    agreed to the terms of the transaction and expressly conveyed her
    no-objection for transfer of ownership of the plaint schedule property
    through her power of attorney holder Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,
    the power of attorney executed (Exh. A4) in his favour, by necessary
    implication, stood ratified and reaffirmed, and the acts performed by
    the said power of attorney holder could not thereafter be questioned
    or doubted in a Court of law. He further urged that the findings
    recorded by the trial Court as well as the High Court, holding that the
    unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed by the defendant-
    respondent in favour of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal,
    stood revoked with effect from 4th September, 2002, are contrary
    to the material available on record and suffer from manifest error.
402                                                       [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


19. He further drew the Court’s attention to the written statement filed
    by the defendant–respondent, wherein the validity of the agreement
    was expressly admitted, and the only objection raised pertained
    to limitation. It was pointed out that in the written statement, the
    defendant–respondent admitted that the agreement dated 14th May,
    2007 (Exh.A1), was negotiated on her behalf by her son, Shri Rasheeq
    Ahmed, acting as her power of attorney holder. It was reiterated by
    learned senior counsel that the subsequent acts performed by Shri
    Muhammed Rafi Thangal were duly and expressly ratified by the
    defendant–respondent.
20. He further submitted that in the entire written statement, the
    defendant–respondent did not deny or dispute the affidavit (Exh. A5)
    dated 30th April, 2013, affirming her ratification of all the acts done
    by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal in furtherance of the unregistered
    power of attorney (Exh. A4).
21. Shri Agrawal also pointed out that the stand taken by the defendant–
    respondent that the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed
    in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi stood revoked on 4th September,
    2002 upon execution of the registered power of attorney (Exh. B1)
    in favour of her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), is belied by the
    fact that she herself affirmed validity of the agreement (Exh. A1)
    dated 14th May, 2007 which was executed by Shri Muhammed Rafi
    Thangal on strength of the disputed unregistered power of attorney
    (Exh. A4). Furthermore, she issued a notice dated 10th November,
    2012 to Shri Muhammed Rafi and the educational authorities, for
    the first time, expressing her intent to revoke the said unregistered
    power of attorney (Exh. A4).
22. He further submitted that the trial Court had affirmed the evidentiary
    value of the affidavit (Exh.A5) by treating it as an admission of the
    defendant–respondent, but thereafter proceeded to discard the said
    document on the basis of the testimony of Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
    (DW-1), the son of the defendant-respondent. It was urged that if
    the defendant–respondent had any intention to prove revocation of
    the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi
    Thangal (Exh. A4) or to disown the affidavit (Exh. A5), she ought
    to have stepped into the witness box herself. However, admittedly,
    the defendant–respondent did not enter the witness box during the
    trial.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                        403

        Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


23. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case wherein this Court should
    exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
    for balancing the equites by setting aside the impugned judgment
    and directing the specific performance of the agreement to the extent
    of the 1/11th share of the respondent-defendant.

     Submissions on behalf of the defendant-respondent
24. Per contra, Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the defendant–respondent, vehemently and fervently opposed
    the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff–appellant. She
    submitted that the power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed in favour
    of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal was an unregistered document,
    whereas the power of attorney executed (Exh. B1) in favour of Shri
    Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant–respondent, was
    a registered instrument. It was contended that upon execution of
    the registered power of attorney (Exh. B1), the earlier unregistered
    power of attorney (Exh. A4) stood automatically revoked.
25. Without prejudice to the above, she further contended that the
    unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) executed by the defendant-
    respondent in favour of her brother, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, did
    not authorise him to convey the plaint schedule property to any third
    party without the express consent of the executant, and, therefore,
    the defendant–respondent could not be bound by the acts undertaken
    by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal acting under the unregistered
    power of attorney (Exh. A4). It was further submitted that the original
    agreement (Exh. A1) inter se the parties, bearing the endorsement of
    Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1), the son of the defendant–respondent
    and her power of attorney, was executed on 14th May, 2007, and
    only a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as advance at the time of
    its execution. It was urged that the suit came to be instituted in the
    year 2013 and was thus clearly barred by limitation in view of the
    Article 54 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
26. She further submitted that the affidavit (Exh. A5) was executed solely
    with a view to facilitating the continued functioning of the school
    and not for the purpose of transferring the share of the defendant-
    respondent in the suit property. It was contended that the said
    document was, therefore, rightly not relied upon by the trial Court
    as well as the High Court in favour of the plaintiff–appellant. She
404                                                       [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       further submitted that the defendant–respondent is willing to make
       a counter offer to purchase the entire property for a consideration
       of Rs.3 crores, being the amount originally stipulated under the
       agreement (Exh. A1).
27. She, therefore, urged that this Court ought not to interfere with
    the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the
    High Court, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant was
    dismissed.

       Discussion and Analysis
28. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on
    record.
29. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaint schedule 1/11th share
    of the defendant-respondent forms part of a larger tract of land
    admeasuring three acres thirty-five cents originally owned by her
    late father Shri Seethi Thangal. A school was built on the entire
    three acres area and is presently being run by the plaintiff-appellant.
30. The plaintiff-appellant has consistently asserted that, having regard
    to the requirements of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, the campus
    of a higher secondary school cannot be reduced below three acres
    and, but for such statutory constraint, he would have conveniently
    given up the claim for the 1/11th share of the defendant-respondent
    in the plaint schedule property.
31. It is further a matter of record that during the course of hearing of
    the appeal, this Court made efforts to facilitate a settlement through
    mediation, and the plaintiff-appellant offered a handsome amount of
    Rs.75 lakhs to the defendant-respondent. However, the said offer
    was point-blank refused by the defendant-respondent, who seems
    to have been overcome by greed owing to the difficulty faced by
    the plaintiff-appellant who would risk losing the right to operate
    the school in case the land area is reduced to less than three
    acres.
32. It is in this background that we shall now proceed to examine the
    material available on record to determine whether the view taken
    by the High Court in affirming the rejection of the suit by the trial
    Court is justified.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                             405

            Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


33. The High Court dismissed the suit primarily on two grounds, namely: -
     (i)      The failure of the plaintiff-appellant to establish readiness
              and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract
              (Exh.A-1);
     (ii)     limitation.
34. On the first aspect, it may be noted that the factum of three extensions
    dated 14th April, 2008 (executed by all nine co-sharers); 7th August,
    2010 and 7th July, 2011(executed by the power of attorney holder,
    Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal), stands duly proved by the plaintiff-
    appellant through unimpeachable and credible evidence. It was only
    on 14th November, 2012, that the defendant-respondent, for the first
    time, caused publication of a newspaper notice purporting to revoke
    the power of attorney executed in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi
    Thangal. Furthermore, the defendant-respondent does not even
    dispute the validity of the agreement (Exh. A1) dated 14th May,
    2007 which was executed by Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal acting
    on the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4). In this backdrop,
    the theory projected by the respondent that the power of attorney
    executed by her in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal stood
    revoked as far back as the year 2002 is ex facie untenable and
    contrary to the record.
35. The most crucial and vital document, which, in our considered view,
    tilts the balance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, is the affidavit (Exh.
    A5) executed by the defendant on 30th April, 2013. The execution
    of the said affidavit (Exh. A5) was neither disputed nor denied by
    the defendant–respondent, who admittedly did not enter the witness
    box in the suit proceedings. Instead, her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
    alone was examined as DW-1. A plain reading of the affidavit,
    particularly the highlighted portions (supra) thereof, clearly establish
    that the defendant–respondent not only ratified the acts performed
    by the power of attorney holder, her brother Shri Muhammed Rafi
    Thangal, but also expressly conveyed her no-objection to the change
    in management and so also the ownership of the school and the
    properties appurtenant thereto in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
    Once the two facts, i.e., the publication of notice in the year 2012 for
    revocation of the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) and the
    affidavit dated 30th April, 2013 are cumulatively taken into account,
    manifestly, limitation would start running from the later date because
406                                                           [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       it is, at that stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused
       execution of sale deed to the extent of her share in the suit property.
36. In this backdrop, we are of the firm view that the issue of limitation
    was erroneously decided by the trial Court as well as the High Court,
    leading to an unjustified rejection of the suit instituted by the appellant.
37. As the execution of the affidavit (Exh. A5) is not in dispute, the
    period of limitation would commence from the said date, i.e., 30th
    April, 2013. We have no hesitation in holding that the suit was
    instituted within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from
    the date of the affidavit. The said affidavit (Exh. A5) not only ratifies
    the acts performed by the power of attorney holder Shri Muhammed
    Rafi Thangal but also records the unequivocal no-objection of the
    executant–defendant to transfer the ownership of the property in
    favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
38. There is no dispute that pursuant to the last extension, the plaintiff-
    appellant paid the remaining sale consideration which was accepted
    by eight co-sharers of the defendant-respondent and the partial
    sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour on 8th May,
    2013. Thus, the issue of readiness and willingness was also wrongly
    decided against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant-
    respondent.
39. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court
    committed grave error in the facts as well as in law in dismissing the
    appeal suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and affirming the judgment
    of the trial Court.
40. The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby
    set aside.
41. The plaintiff-appellant is held entitled to conveyance of the 1/11th share
    of the defendant–respondent in the plaint schedule property. The trial
    Court shall determine the balance sale consideration payable to the
    defendant-respondent, having regard to the original consideration
    stipulated in the principal agreement for sale (Exh. A1), and shall
    apply simple interest at the rate of 9% thereon. The appellant shall
    deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two
    months from the date of such determination, whereupon a registered
    sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property shall be executed
    in favour of the appellant.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         407

        Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi


42. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
43. Decree be prepared accordingly.
44. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3895 OF 2022
45. This appeal is preferred against the interim order dated 19th November,
    2021 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No.1425 of 2021.
46. The writ appeal was preferred by defendant-respondent Sakeena
    Beevi through her power of attorney holder Shri Rasheeq Ahmed
    (DW-1), assailing the order dated 11th October, 2021 passed by
    the learned Single Judge. By the said order, learned Single Judge
    upheld the decision of the Director of Public Instruction (DPI)
    rejecting the representation preferred by the writ petitioner against
    the proposed assignment of the ownership and management of
    Aleemul Islam Higher Secondary School, Padoor to the plaintiff-
    appellant (respondent No. 3 before the High Court). Accordingly, the
    writ petition was dismissed and the order of the DPI was affirmed.
47. The writ petitioner alleged that since she had not agreed to sell her
    share from the joint family land on which the school existed, the
    total land area of the school fell below 3 acres mandatorily required
    to operate a higher secondary school as per Rule 5A Chapter 3 of
    the Kerala Education Rules, 2005. The DPI, however, rejected the
    representation of the writ petitioner. As stated above, the writ petition
    also came to be rejected.
48. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the District Education
    Officer (DEO), Chavakkad, by order dated 15th November, 2021
    recognised the plaintiff-appellant as the Manager of the school w.e.f.
    3rd September, 2019.
49. The Division Bench stayed the effective operation of the order of
    learned Single Judge dated 11th October, 2021 and also the order
    dated 15th November, 2021 passed by the DEO during pendency of
    the writ appeal. Consequently, the management of the school was
    directed to be vested with the DEO, Chavakkad. While providing for
    this interim arrangement, the Division Bench directed the DEO to
    discharge the functions of the Manager on the joint instructions of
    the writ petitioner and the plaintiff-appellant.
408                                                          [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


50. Learned counsel representing the State of Kerala vehemently and
    fervently contended that looking to the disputes pending between the
    parties pertaining to 1/11th share of the defendant (writ appellant) in the
    suit schedule property, the High Court, rightly passed the impugned
    order making an interim arrangement for management of the school
    so that the functioning thereof would not suffer. He urged that as
    the DEO has been ordered to act under the instructions of the writ
    petitioner as well as the plaintiff-appellant herein, no prejudice would
    be caused to any of the parties in continuing such arrangement.
51. By way of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022, we
    have granted the decree of specific performance in favour of the
    plaintiff-appellant. In view of the above decision, manifestly, the
    plaintiff-appellant would have available to him the full tract of 3 acres
    land for running the school as required under the Kerala Education
    Rules, 2005.
52. Hence, there is no further requirement of continuing the interim
    arrangement as directed by the High Court by the impugned order.
53. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19th November, 2021 passed
    by the High Court is set aside.
54. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.
55. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey