JUDGMENT : The facts of this case present a very afflictive and upsetting situation. The genesis of this litigation, has, in its core, certain issues between the mother and a son, which have now assumed proportions that are extremely distressing. I do not propose to go into the details of the facts of this case in extenso because I do not deem it necessary since any such exercise would only ensure that the wounds are not allowed to heal and remain festering. 2. The facts compendiously, as are sufficing to enable me to dispose of this case, are that on account of certain issues between the mother and the son, who are the petitioner and the first respondent herein, a suit was filed by the son and his wife claiming an amount of Rs.5,89,500/-. It appears that while the suit was pending, a settlement was arrived at as per which the mother agreed to make payment of an amount of Rupees five lakhs in a particular manner. She alleges that she has made substantial part of the payment but that she has refused to pay the balance amount because a reciprocal obligation on the part of the son and daughter-in-law has not been performed. However, while so, the property of the mother was attached in execution and subjected to sale, which was purchased by the son and daughter-in-law by themselves. The distraught mother obviously filed an application to set aside the sale on various grounds before the court below and the same was dismissed. It is against that order that the mother has come up in this original petition. 3. I have heard Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sanjeetha K.A., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. The pleadings in this case would show that the suit was initiated by the son and daughter-in-law as plaintiffs against the mother, who was the defendant. As noticed above, pending the suit a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the same is appended to the original petition as Exhibit P1. As per the terms of the settlement, the defendant, the petitioner herein, was to pay an amount of Rupees five lakhs in two instalments; Rupees three lakhs to be paid within two months from the date of releasing of the pendente lite attachment of the property and the balance within three months thereafter. As per the terms of the settlement, the defendant, the petitioner herein, was to pay an amount of Rupees five lakhs in two instalments; Rupees three lakhs to be paid within two months from the date of releasing of the pendente lite attachment of the property and the balance within three months thereafter. There was also a clause in the settlement that before accepting the second instalment of Rupees two lakhs, the daughter-in-law, who was the second plaintiff, shall execute a sale deed of her property in favour of the son, the first plaintiff in the suit. It is admitted on both sides that the first instalment of Rupees three lakhs was paid by the mother within time. The controversy in issue is regarding Rupees two lakhs that was remaining unpaid. The mother asserts that her obligation to make payment of Rupees two lakhs would arise only as and when the daughter-in-law executes the sale deed in favour of the son. Since this was not done by the daughter-in-law, the petitioner refused to make payment. It is, therefore, that the decree was put to execution by the respondents herein and the petitioner's property was sold. 5. I notice from the order of the court below that the claim of the mother that there is a reciprocal obligation has been negatived holding that the particular term in the settlement that the daughter-in-law execute a sale deed in favour of the son does not in any manner inure to the benefit of the mother and that, therefore, this cannot be treated as a reciprocal obligation, the breach of which would enable the mother to resile from having to tender the balance Rupees two lakhs. 6. The forensic provisions relating to reciprocal promises and obligations are canalised in the profluent flow of Sections 51 to 58 of the Indian Contract Act ('the Act' for brevity). Reciprocal promises are defined in the Act, under Section 2(f), being promises which form the consideration or part of the consideration for each other. The interplay of such promises arising therefrom are contained in Sections 51 to 58 as noticed above. Section 51 provides that when a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise. The interplay of such promises arising therefrom are contained in Sections 51 to 58 as noticed above. Section 51 provides that when a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise. The order of performance of reciprocal promises is provided in Section 51, which says that where the order in which reciprocal promises are to be performed is expressly fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order and where the order is not expressly fixed by the contract, they shall be performed in that order which the nature of the transaction requires. The other provisions, from Sections 53 to 58, provide for liability, effect of default in performance, effect of failure to perform at a fixed time and legality and illegality of such reciprocal promises and its effect on the obligation to perform. Obviously, therefore, the legal position would be that if reciprocal promises are made, then the promisor can resile from the promises made by him if the promisee is not willing and ready to perform his reciprocal promise. This is the law. I have stated this here only because I think the mother was justified in certain of her assumptions. 7. The court below has taken a view that the terms of the settlement between the parties that the daughter-in-law execute a sale deed in favour of the son does not operate to the benefit of the mother and that, therefore, this is not a reciprocal obligation may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny from the stand point of the explicit terms of the Statute. It does not matter, under the aforenoticed provisions, that the promises made by one party obtain benefit to the other, since it is imperative that promises, which are made as reciprocal ones, would still obligate performance notwithstanding that such promises would eventually lead to no benefit for the party in whose favour it is made. This being the law, I am not sure whether the court below was right in concluding, as it has done, as to the performance of the daughter-in-law regarding her reciprocal obligation in the settlement. This being the law, I am not sure whether the court below was right in concluding, as it has done, as to the performance of the daughter-in-law regarding her reciprocal obligation in the settlement. However, whether this would cause consequences as are provided under the Act or whether this would lead to the consequences as are mandated therein are issues which I must steer away at this time on account of the nature of the directions I propose in this case. 8. It is obvious from Exhibit P1 that the mother has to pay Rupees five lakhs. It is also conceded that she has paid Rupees three lakhs within the prescribed time and that the balance payable is only rupees two lakhs. The refusal to make payment of Rupees two lakhs has led to sale of the property. I am rather disappointed that an old mother should be pushed through the confines and constraints of litigation and the prospect of loosing her property solely because the compromise condition of Rupees two lakhs had been refused to be paid by her under the bona fide impression that she was liable in law to make such payment only if the daughter-in-law executes a sale deed relating to a particular property in favour of the son. At least, this was the way the petitioner had understood the terms of the compromise. This impression is not totally unfounded since the second clause of Exhibit P1 would also lend some force to this impression of the petitioner because it says that before accepting the second instalment, the daughter-in-law has to execute the conveyance. This is not a mere matter of her interpretation since as I have noticed in the earlier paragraphs, the mother may have the sanction of Sections 51 and 52 of the Act in asserting that she will not perform her part of the promise unless the daughter-in-law performs hers. However, I do not intend to go into details of these aspects since any further exercise in this direction would only lead to unhealthy recriminations between the mother on one hand and son and daughter-in-law on the other and the wounds of their mistrust for each other suppurating and unhealing. 9. However, I do not intend to go into details of these aspects since any further exercise in this direction would only lead to unhealthy recriminations between the mother on one hand and son and daughter-in-law on the other and the wounds of their mistrust for each other suppurating and unhealing. 9. I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and notwithstanding the technicalities alleged and the contentions advanced, it is high time and imperatively pressing that a quietus be found to the controversy. Since the compromise mandates that the mother pay Rupees five lakhs to the son and daughter-in-law, I deem it necessary that the terms of such compromise be complied with by her in its letter and spirit. Since the petitioner had already made payment of Rupees three lakhs within the time granted to her, all that remains is payment of Rupees two lakhs. I do not think it is necessary that for recovery of this money the property of the petitioner should have been put to sale. Of course, the court below had no other option because the mother was refusing to make payment under the impression that she was not required to do so until the daughter-in-law complies with the terms set against her in the compromise. Whatever be the nature of the contest and the allegations or the averments contained in this original petition, I deem it necessary that an effort be taken by both the parties to bring to stall all the raging controversies so as to find themselves peace and tranquility especially because they are mother and children after all. 10. In such circumstances, I am of the view that substantial justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to make payment of Rupees two lakhs to the respondents along with a consolidated interest and expenses of another Rs.25,000/- on or before a date to be determined so that the respondents can accept that money in lieu of the property that has been bid by them. 11. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram on or before 31.03.2017 and on such remittance, the court below shall allow E.A.No. 249/2013 in E.P.No.494/2007 in O.S.No.28/2003. 11. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram on or before 31.03.2017 and on such remittance, the court below shall allow E.A.No. 249/2013 in E.P.No.494/2007 in O.S.No.28/2003. Consequently, the sale thus being set aside, the parties shall be at liberty to cancel all the non-judicial stamp papers on which the sale deed has been written under the provisions of the relevant statutes and apply for such amounts, as would be payable on such cancellation, with the appropriate authorities. 12. Needless to say that if the petitioner defaults in remitting this amount within the time granted, all the benefits granted herein would stand immediately abrogated and the order of the court below, impugned in this original petition, would automatically stand revived and restored. With the above directions, the writ petition is ordered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.