MOULASAHEB LALESAHEB MULLA Vs. AMINSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 186 of 1974 and appellant in R.A. No. 74 of 1980 has filed this appeal. Respondent was the plaintiff. She filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendant had agreed to sell R.S. No. 90/2 and his share in R.S. No. 139 of Alahalli Village for Rs. 6,000/-. In pursuance of that agreement he received a sum of Rs. 3,200/- in two instalments. The period stipulated for execution of the sale deed was three years. Plaintiff instituted the suit on 9-7-1974 alleging that the defendant went on postponing the execution of the sale deed. Ultimately she issued a notice on 24-6-1974 which was replied by the defendant on 1-7-1974 thereby refusing to honour the agreement of sale. Plaintiff sought for a decree of specific performance of contract in the alternative for the refund of the amount with costs and damages. Defendant denied the agreement of Sale and maintained that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist by profession, as such she to not entitled to purchase the lands which are the subject-matter of the agreement of sale. Several other contentions were raised by the defendant which are not necessary to be adverted to in this appeal.

(2.) On the pleadings the trial Court framed the issues as found in paragraph 4 of itsJudgment. In the light of the arguments advanced by Sri K.I. Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant, only issue which needs to be reproduced is Issue No. 5 which reads thus:

(3.) After the evidence when the case was heard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendant submitted that this question may be kept open and the parties would agitate the matter before proper forum at appropriate time. The finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard reads thus: