KAVITA GANASHAMDAS, W/O. LATE GANASHAMDAS Vs. SRI SUDARSHAN MURTHY, S/O. A. MUNIYAPPA, RATHNAVATHI, W/O. U.M. RAMDAS BALLAL AND SRI SANJAY L. CARLO, S/O. LACHMADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against the order passed by the 11th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in OS 223/2000 and 2334/2000 on 25.8.2009.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is common in both the suits - one filed for permanent injunction and another for specific performance, According to the Plaintiff, the first suit is filed against Defendants 1 to 3 for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The second suit is for specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction and from dispossessing. Subsequently the suit against the 2nd Defendant in OS 2334/2000 viz., Sanjay Carlo was got dismissed by the Plaintiff. Further, the suit in OS 223/2000 was not proceeded against Sanjay M Karlo who was the 3rd Defendant.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by Defendants 1 and 2. While admitting the ownership of 2nd Defendant and also entering into an agreement to sell with the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/ - and receiving advance payment of Rs. 50,000/ - under the agreement dated 15.2.89, the 2nd Defendant denied the receipt of balance payment. It is stated, since the Plaintiff has not paid the balance consideration within the stipulated time, she cancelled the sale agreement by issuing a legal notice and later sold the property in favour of the 1st Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 9.2.1998. Since then, the 1st Defendant is in possession as a bonafide purchaser and denied the possession of the Plaintiff. Based on the pleadings in OS 223/2000, following issues have been filed: 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction caused by the Defendants for her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3. Is Plaintiff entitled to the relief sought for? 4. To what order or decree.