MALLANNA ALIAS APPAIAH Vs. SMT. MUNINANJAMMA ALIAS NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 130 of 1989 and Defendant in O.S. No. 542 of 1989 on the file of II Additional Munsiff, Bangalore, against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1995 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, in Regular Appeal No. 64 of 1994 which was filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 542 of 1989 against the common judgment and decree dated 17.9.1994 passed in the aforesaid two suits.

(2.) THE Plaintiff in O.S. No. 130 of 1989 filed the suit for eviction of the Defendant from the suit schedule premises on the ground that he was a tenant. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 542 of 1989 filed the suit seeking specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 28.4.1980 executed by the Defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Both the suits pertain to the same property. The trial Court conducted separate trial for each suit but since the parties and the property involved is the same, a common judgment was passed on 19.7.1994 dismissing O.S. No. 542 of 1989 and decreeing O.S. No. 130 of 1989 giving two months time to the Defendant to vacate the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendant in O.S. No. 130 of 1989 filed appeal in Regular Appeal No. 64 of 1994. The first appellate Court by its judgment dated 6.1.1995 allowed the appeal, set aside the common judgment and decree of the trial Court. Consequently, it has decreed the suit in O.S. No. 542 of 1989 directing the Defendant to execute the registered sale deed within a period of two months and the suit for eviction in O.S. No. 130 of 1989 was dismissed. Challenging the correctness of the said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court the appellant/Plaintiff in O.S. No. 130 of 1989 (Defendant in O.S. No. 542 of 1989) has preferred this second appeals and another appeal in Regular Second Appeal No. 90 of 1996, which has been disposed of separately.

(3.) THIS appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: