KHAMRUDDIN Vs. N TAHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 22-3-2000, the two revision petitions under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code in C. R. P. No. 3026 of 1999 and C. R. P. No. 3027 of 1999 were dismissed by me. In these two petitions under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code the petitioners have sought for review of the said common order.

(2.) FEW facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications may be stated thus: petitioners are the L. Rs of deceased Khamruddin, defendant in O. S. No. 4305 of 1989 in the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. It would appear that there was an agreement between them to sell the house property situated in the City of Bangalore and accordingly deceased Khamruddin executed an agreement to sell dated 2-4-1987 agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 8,57,000/ -. It is stated that thereafter the deceased khamruddin refused to execute the sale deed and therefore plaintiff instituted original suit in O. S. No. 10743 of 1987 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property and that suit came to be dismissed with an observation that the plaintiff could as well file a suit for specific performance. It is thereafter plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 4305 of 1989 for specific performance of the contract based on the said agreement dated 2-4-1987. After contest the suit came to be decreed on 8-6-1994. It would reveal that thereafter an application for setting aside the decree was filed in Mis. Case No. 455 of 1994 and that application was dismissed on 17-1-1996. Aggrieved, a revision petition was filed before this Court in C. R. P. No. 313 of 1996 and on 14-2-1996 the Court declined to admit it. It is also seen from the records that thereafter the L. Rs filed regular first appeal in R. F. A. No. 396 of 1996 against the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1994 in O. S. No. 4306 of 1989 and that appeal was dismissed on 6-11-1996. It is thereafter decree-holder sued out execution, one for delivery of warrant and the other petition for recovery of costs. These two applications were contested and the Trial Court by order dated 21-9-1999 dismissed those applications and directed issuance of delivery warrant. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed civil revision petitions and C. R. P. No. 3027 of 1999 in this Court. After hearing both the learned Counsel, these two revision petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 22-3-2000. In the execution proceedings objection raised was that in view of the provisions contained in Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore the decree passed in the suit is a nullity and that objection was repelled by the executing Court on the ground that the agreement in question is prior to the day Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act came into force. Chapter xxc of the Act was made applicable to the City of Bangalore with effect from 1-10-1987, the date of agreement to sell is 2-4-1987. The order was confirmed in revision holding that the consideration being less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, Section 269-UC of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of Rule 48-K of the Income-tax Rules. It is this order that is sought to be reviewed.

(3.) IT may also be noted here that after the disposal of the regular first appeal and during the pendency of execution petitions and may be after the Court executed the sale deed in terms of the decree in the suit, on 12-12-1996 one Abdul Shukoor it is stated has filed a suit in O. S. No. 86s2 of 1996 against the parties to these proceedings for specific performance of the contract based on an agreement to sell dated 14-3-1986 said to have been executed by the deceased Khamruddin and it is pending trial. It is also stated that one of the reliefs sought in the suit is to set aside the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1994 in O. S. No. 4306 of 1989. The date of agreement between the deceased Khamruddin and the respondent is 2-4-1987. The suit is filed in the year 1989 and the judgment and decree is dated 8-6-1994. But the records do not reveal that at any time before, the deceased defendant or bis L. Rs raised the question of jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 269-UC of the Act which was made applicable to Bangalore City with effect from 1-10-1987.