MANJEGOWDA Vs. M.R.MANJEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant's second appeal calling in question divergent findings of the Addl. Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Hassan allowing judgment and decree dt. 22.11.2006 in R.A.170/2006 to set-aside the Judgment and decree dt. 6.4.2005 of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC-II, Hassan, dismissing O.S.207/2001 and decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property. The 1st defendant instituted O.S.207/2001 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt. 21.3.1991 executed by one Range Gowda agreeing to convey 20 guntas and 11 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 138 and 143 respectively of Malligevalu village, Hassan taluk, having received the full consideration of Rs. 25,000/-, and further agreeing to execute and lodge for registration the sale deed, after the expiry of the period of non-alienation of 15 years from 2.3.1981, a condition on being conferred with occupancy right over the said tenanted agricultural lands, by the Land Tribunal, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. According to the plaintiff, Range Gowda's two sons defendants 2 and 3 too extended their consent to the conveyance of the said properties by their father, by affixing their signatures as witness to the agreement of sale, in addition to the signature of one another witness by name Govinde Gowda. 1st defendant entered appearance and resisted the suit by filing a written statement inter alia denying the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as consideration by his father Range Gowda, reported to have died on 9.12.2000 and during his life time plaintiff had not issued notice for execution of the sale deed. In addition, it was contended that during the lifetime of Rangegowda the properties fell to his share in a partition, following which his name was recorded in the revenue registers in respect of the said properties where afterwards has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It was also contended that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 colluded in fabricating the alleged agreement of sale, so as to disentitle the 1st defendant to a claim to the properties. It was lastly contended that defendants 2 and 3 when accused of the murder of the 1st defendant's son were bent upon ensuring that the properties in question would not be available to the 1st defendant.

(2.) Defendants 2 and 3 filed their written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff and sought decree of the suit.

(3.) In the premise of pleadings of parties, the trial court framed the following issues: