LAWS(KAR)-1990-8-16

NARAYAN HANMANTH RAJPUT Vs. GANAPATHI KHANDOBA KHURUPE

Decided On August 16, 1990
NARAYAN HANMANTH RAJPUT Appellant
V/S
GANAPATHI KHANDOBA KHURUPE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No question of law or fact muchless as a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. It is wholly misconceived.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell inter alia contending that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of a plot of land in Kangrali in Belgaum measuring approximately 35'x 66.6' ft. He further alleged that he paid a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance. He further alleged that he was willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/- the balance consideration price and that the Court therefore should appoint a Commissioner to execute the suit sale deed in respect of the suit properly. The defendant admitted that he was the owner of the suit property. He also admitted the execution of the agreement to sell as well as consideration shown therein but he denied that he was avoiding to execute the sale deed under the agreement to sell. He specifically averred that the defendant never tendered the sum of Rs. 2000/- nor attempted tendering the amount. The defendant was always ready and willing to perform his obligation in respect of the sale deed. As the balance consideration was not paid, the plaintiff who was in default of payment was not entitled to the relief as prayed for. He also alleged that the Urban Land Ceiling Act was in the way and unless the plaintiff took appropriate steps in obtaining the permission of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, it was not possible to convey the property. But all attempts made by the defendant to secure the co-operation of the plaintiff in that behalf did not meet with success. Therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. He also took the stand that the suit was barred by time as the agreement was entered in 1977.

(3.) On such pleadings as many as five issues were framed. It suffices to state the third issue and the finding recorded by the trial Court on it. The third issue was as follows: "(3) Whether the suit is barred by time?"