S. R. SURESH Vs. RUDRAPPA KABBUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed the present regular first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2013 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 06.02.2009 said to have been executed by the defendants.

(2.) The present appellants who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed O.S.No.24/2020 for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 06.02.2009 contending that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the husband and wife, defendant Nos.3 to 7 are the children and are living in a joint family. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are the owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.258 measuring 03 acres 04 guntas and Sy.No.259 measuring 02 acres 29 guntas both situated at Avaragere village, Davanagere Taluk, totally measuring 05 acres 33 guntas adjacent to each other. Out of the said lands, the Western portion measuring 03 acres was agreed to be sold by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs under an agreement dated 06.02.2009 and accordingly executed an agreement for a valuable consideration of Rs.20.00 lakhs per acre and on the date of the agreement the defendants had received a sum of Rs.35.00 lakhs towards the advance sale consideration and the time stipulated for registration/execution of the sale deed was after four months from the date of the agreement after the receipt of the balance sale consideration. It is further contended that the defendants though agreed to get the land surveyed, fix the boundaries and execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 within four months after the date of agreement, they have not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, plaintiff No.2 got issued legal notice to the defendants through his General Power of Attorney holder plaintiff No.1. The defendants have filed untenable reply. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance.

(3.) Pursuant to the summons issued, except defendant No.6 all other defendants appeared through their learned counsel. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the plaint averments, the execution of the agreement of sale dated 06.02.2009, receipt of advance amount and signatures on the agreement by the defendants and specifically contended that the alleged agreement of sale is false, concocted and created for the purpose of filing the suit against them. He further contended that the plaintiffs were insisting the defendants to sell the property since they had no proper access to the road. As the defendants did not agree to sell, the plaintiffs have got created the alleged agreement of sale and the alleged sale agreement is not a registered one. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is not also maintainable. Hence, sought to dismiss to suit.