K.R. RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. GANGALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gare Mudduramaiah (deceased), now represented through his legal representatives; Shri Siddaiah and Mayarangappa (deceased) now represented through their legal representatives, Respondents 2 to 4 herein, allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the appellant on 26.04.1982. The proposed vendors also entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of Smt Gangalakshamma (plaintiff), Respondent 1 herein on 1.03.1984.

(2.) Respondent 1 filed a suit being OS No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the Munsif at Nelamangala, for permanent injunction on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 1.03.1984, for a sum of Rs. 5000.00 out of which she claimed to have paid Rs. 4000.00 to Respondents 2 to 4. The appellant was also made a party-Defendant 4 in the said suit as injunction was sought against him as well. Later on, the said suit with due permission of the court was converted into a suit for specific performance and injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court.

(3.) Aggrieved against the decree passed by the trial court, the proposed vendors, Respondents 2 and 3 as well as the appellant filed an appeal which was accepted by the first appellate court. Agreement for sale dated 26.04.1982 in favour of the appellant was not accepted and discarded. The appellant was not found to be in possession of the property in part-performance of the contract. Agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 dated 1.03.1984 was found to be in order and valid. He was also found to be in possession of the suit property. The first appellate court partly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The agreement dated 1.03.1984 though validly executed was held to be not enforceable as it violated and contravened the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 in pursuance of the agreement dated 1.03.1984 was denied on that account. The suit for injunction was decreed.