MANJUNATH ANANDAPPA URF SHIVAPPA HANSI Vs. TAMMANASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 3 is the appellant herein. Defendant No. 1 is admittedly the owner of the property in suit. Defendant No. 2 is the constituted attorney of Defendant No. 1, who, on or about 1-10-1978 is said to have entered into an agreement for sale with the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property bearing No. C.T.S. No. 1921/A of Gadag Betageri City Municipal area for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was allegedly paid as advance. In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff allegedly was put in possession of the suit property.

(2.) The Deed of sale, pursuant to the said agreement was to be executed within 3 years from the date thereof on payment of the balance sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Defendant No. 3, the appellant herein, purchased the suit property by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 15-5-1984 for valuable consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff on or about 15-5-1984 admittedly made an enquiry in the C. T. S. Office to obtain the C. T. S. extract of the suit property, when he came to learn that the defendant already executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant whereupon he served a notice dated 8-8-1984 upon Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 demanding specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 1-10-1978. As regards cause of action, in the Plaint it was stated :

(3.) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff in his plaint did not make any averment as regard his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as is mandatory required in terms of S. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He merely alleged :