AKKAMMA Vs. RAYMOND QUADROS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the original defendant against the judgment and decree passed in G.S. No. 4992/2002 by City Civil Court, Bangalore. The respondent herein was the plaintiff. Respondent herein filed suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale Ex. P -1 dated 21.4.1999 relating to land bearing Survey No. 81/1C, measuring 20 guntas, situated at Bilekalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendants being the owners of the land bearing Survey N0.81/1C, measuring 20 guntas, situated at Bilekalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk proposed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. After negotiation, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said property for sale consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, an agreement was entered into on 21.4.1999 as per Ex. P -1. On the date of the agreement, Rs. 50,000/ - was paid as earnest money. A further sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was paid on 19.6,1999 and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid on 22.7.1999. Thus, in all, Rs. 2 lakhs were paid to the defendants as earnest money. From out of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the plaintiff under Ex. P -1, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was agreed to be paid to one Mr, Dayanand Pal for getting the land released. The agreement stipulates one year time for completion of the contract. The plaintiff avers that inspite of his repeated requests, the defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed within the period of one year on the ground that the khata was not changed in the name of the defendants. After waiting for more than two years, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.7.2002 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the Sale Deed. The defendants replied to the said notice on 26.7.2002 denying the request of the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed. Hence, the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. P -1 dated 21.4.1999. According to the plaintiff, time is not the essence of the contract.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court.