BASAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA Vs. SRI V RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATSMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (1(A) SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1243/1995. The suit in question was initially filed on 22.02.1995 seeking for the relief of injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs developmental work in progress in the suit schedule properties. The prayer against alienation was also sought by way of injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the same was amended on 27.10.1997 and the additional prayer for specific performance was also sought. Subsequently once again the plaint was amended and the prayer was limited to the specific performance in respect of the sites indicated in the plaint 'E' schedule property. The Court below after considering the matter in detail has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011 The plaintiff claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment is before this Court in this appeal. The parties would be referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the plaintiff contends that the defendants along with their mother are the owners of the property bearing Sy.No.32 of Kammagondanahalli village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk having acquired the same under the deed dated 12.03.1958. In respect of the said properties since the defendants had definite shares in the properties, the defendants executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff in respect of their respective portions. The portions to which the different defendants were indicated as owners is delineated as schedule 'A' to 'D' properties. In that regard, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the agreement of sale dated 30.05.1993 was executed by the first defendant in respect of the plaint schedule 'A' property agreeing to sell the property for the sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/ - and an advance consideration of Rs.50,000/ - was received in that regard. It is further contended that a similar agreement dated 30.05.1993 was executed by the second defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/ - towards which a sum of Rs.45,000/ - was paid. Insofar as the third defendant, it is contended that he had executed the agreement dated 30.05.1993 where the sale consideration being Rs.2,25,000/ - in respect of 'C' schedule property for which an advance of Rs.50,000/ - was paid in that regard. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the fourth defendant also executed an agreement dated 30.05.1993 in respect of the 'D' schedule property and the sale consideration agreed therein was Rs.1,25,000/ - towards which advance of Rs.30,000/ - was paid.

(3.) THE defendants on being served with the suit summons entered appearance and filed their written statements separately and would however at the first instance, admit that the agreement had been executed. But, since the plaintiff had failed to secure the sale deed within the time agreed therein, the advance amount had been refunded and the agreement had been cancelled. Therefore, the question of plaintiff seeking for specific performance would not arise. In fact the fourth defendant had totally denied the case of the plaintiff that he had executed any agreement. The other defendants though had admitted the signature on the agreement, had also contended that they being illiterates were not aware of the details indicated in the agreement. With regard to the amounts as claimed by the plaintiff, in any event, it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff had not been put in possession of the property and the defendants continue to be in possession of the property. Therefore, the defendants on referring to these aspects of the matter had contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the plaint. No doubt after the amendment was made, the defendants have not filed any additional statement.