BORAMMA Vs. KRISHNA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka decreeing the suit filed by the Respondents for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit land executed by the Appellant-Defendant in favour of the Respondents- Plaintiffs on December 10, 1970 (Exhibit P-1)

(2.) It appears that the agricultural land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of Survey No. 56/7 situated at Kuruvanka village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hasan District (referred to in this judgment as 'the suit property') belonged to Respondents No. 1 and 2, who were minor and under the guardianship of Respondent No. 3. On 30th November, 1970, Respondent No. 3, as guardian of Respondents 1 and 2, sold that suit property in favour of the Appellant and, in turn, the Appellant executed an agreement for sale (reconvene deed) in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 alleging that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the Appellant was not willing to re-convey the property in their favour, the Respondents filed the suit, O. S. No. 32 of 1973, in the court of Munsiff, Channarayapatna in 1973. The Appellant contested the suit inter alia, on the grounds : (1) that the agreement (Exh. P-1) was not executed by him and (2) that the Plaintiffs have not been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and there is no averment to that effect in the plaint. The parties went on trial on issues framed by the trial court, of which the material issues for purposes of this appeal are as follows:

(3.) After the parties led their evidence, the trial court held issues (i) and (ii) in favour of the Appellants but it held issue No. (iii) against them and dismissed the suit on March 29,1975. The Appellants went on appeal before the District Judge Hassan in Regular Appeal No. 27 of 1978. The learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the trial court on the said three issues. Indeed, the learned District Judge added that the averments in the plaint do not conform to Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and thus dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal filed by the Respondents before the High Court the following substantial question of law was framed :-