T S RATNA Vs. SRI S SUBRAMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal Under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 24/93 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hospet. Though the matter has come up for orders regarding non-compliance of office objections, we have taken up the appeal for disposal having regard to the limited issues involved in the appeal.

(2.) We have heard Smt. Veena Hegde, learned Counsel for Appellant, Sri Anant Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5(a), 5(b), 6(a), 6(b), 7, 8, 9 and 10(a) and gone through the findings of the lower Court with records, documentary and oral evidence and law on the point and we are fully satisfied that this is an appeal which deserves dismissal on the following facts and the foregoing reasons.

(3.) The suit was for specific performance on the premise that some of the Defendants, particularly Defendant No. 1 and 2 had executed an agreement dated 17.11.1992 to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and for which purpose under the suit agreement a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had already been received, which amount of course was entitled to be forfeited by the owners of the suit schedule property in the case the Plaintiff fails to perform her part of the agreement, by not paying the balance sale consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/-.