RAMAKKA Vs. K MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against the divergent findings of the Courts below. Parties in this appeal will be referred to hereinafter by the ranks and position assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff Muniyappa alias Doddannaiah filed O. S. No. 304 of 1960 in the then Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, seeking to enforce specific performance by defendant-1 (the present appellant in this Court). This specific performance prayed for was related to certain immoveable properties and one village house set out in the plaint schedule. They were 10 items in number, situated in two villages of Anekal Taluk. It is necessary at this stage itself to state that except item Nos. 3 & 9 of the suit schedule properties, all other items are less than one acre in ex lent. The agreement in respect of these properties was executed on 24-4-57 by defendant-1 in favour of plaintiff. According to the plaint averments, summarised, defendant-1 did not have title to the suit schedule properties. She being a widow, not being able to cultivate the lands herself she wanted to dispose of the same to the plaintiff subject however to her perfecting title which had been disputed by third parties. It was in that circumstance that monies were advanced by the plaintiff from time to time and finally when the agreement of sale deed was executed on the aforementioned date showing a total consideration of Rs. 6,000 had been paid as advance against the sale of the properties. Remaining Rs. 2000 was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the first defendant had filed O. S. No. 156 of 1957 in the Court of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, praying for declaration of her title to the suit schedule properties against one Muniswamappa and another and in that case she was successful in obtaining the decree for declaration and possession. In that behalf she filed Ex.No. 313 of 1960 seeking possession of the suit schedule properties which had already come to his possession at the time of the agreement of sale which was executed in the year 1957. Plaintiff resisted the delivery of possession to defendant-1 in the execution petition taken out by her. Soon after, he issued a legal notice to defendant-1 to convey the suit schedule properties in accordance with the agreement of 1957. On her failure to do so, he presented the plaint for specific performance as earlier mentioned.

(3.) The suit claim was resisted by defendant-1, on the ground that she did not execute any agreement of sale whatsoever and she denied almost every assertion made by the plaintiff including denial of the said agreement of sale. On such pleadings the trial Court framed as many as 7 issues which are as follows: -