B. SHIVARAM RAI Vs. N.C. PALANI SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the original defendant in O.S. No. 4/2000 against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madikeri.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant entered into sale agreement as per Ex. P1 on 14.7.1998 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/ -. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ - was paid earlier to execution of Ex. P1 and the balance of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was to be paid at the time of execution of sale agreement. The period stipulated for completion of the process of executing the sale deed was one year from the date of agreement. On 15.7.1998, the defendant converted the land for non -agricultural purposes. Thereafter the defendant started delaying the process of execution of the sale deed. In the meanwhile, defendant offered to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - to the plaintiff with interest at 18% p.a., from 14.7.1998 and in default thereof to comply with the agreement dated 14.7.1998. Accordingly, the defendant executed another agreement as per Ex. P2 dated 13.10.1999 mentioning therein that he has received entire sale price of the suit schedule property and due to various reasons he could not sell the suit property and would return the sale amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - with interest at 18% p.a. amounting to Rs. 90,000/ -, i.e., in all Rs. 4,90,000/ -. Accordingly, a cheque bearing No. 0854875, dated 15.11.1999 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Sunticoppa for Rs. 4,90,000/ - was drawn by the defendant and was handed over to the plaintiff with the condition that if the cheque is not honoured in the bank, the agreement dated 14.7.1998 would revive, empowering the plaintiff to have the suit schedule property sold in his favour as per the agreement dated 14.7.1998; the cheque was presented to the bank by the plaintiff, which came to be returned, due to insufficient funds. Thereafter the plaintiff issued notice on 29.11.1999 calling upon the defendant to comply with the agreement Ex. P11 immediately. Defendant sent his reply as per Ex. P12 on 14.11.1999, denying the sale agreement and the cheque. Hence, the suit came to be filed for specific performance of the agreements, dated 14.7.1998 and 13.10.1999.