SIDDAPPA Vs. MUDAKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is by the defendants 2 and 3 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad, in O.S.No.161/1996. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance and in the alternative, for refund of earnest money and also for possession.

(2.) The suit properties - four items, are together measuring about 14 acres 34 guntas in Sy.Nod.85/2, 85/3A, 85/3B and 85/4 situate at Sirur village of Navalgund Taluk. The suit lands are adjacent to each other having its boundaries mentioned in the Schedule. The suit lands are situated nearer to Hireulligeri village where the plaintiff is residing. The plaintiff having disposed of his own land situated at his original village, was settled at Hireulligeri village and was in search of the land near Hreulligeri. In the year 1994, the family of defendants 1 to 3 was in financial difficulty and wanted to sell the lands. The plaintiff approached the defendants who agreed to sell the suit lands for sale consideration of Rs.1,08,750/- and entered into an agreement to sell. The said agreement was signed by defendant No.2 in his individual capacity as well as in the capacity of guardian of defendant No.3 who was minor then, by receiving earnest money of Rs.25,000/-. It was agreed that the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration and defendants also agreed to equally bear the expenses of sale deed and agreed to obtain permission from the competent authority. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit lands on the date of agreement itself and the plaintiff spent huge sums of money to improve the lands which were full of thorny bushes and Jali trees and made the land cultivable. It is contended that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and had requested the defendants on several occasion to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration and also persuaded them to do so through village elders. But the defendants went on postponing the same.

(3.) The suit lands were Walikarki lands which were re-granted by the Government to defendants and there was no restriction for alienation, except that 15 times of the assessment has to be paid to Government for obtaining permission for alienation. It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff, sold Sy.No.85/3A at Sl.No.2 of the plaint to defendant No.4 on 16.11.1994 behind the back of plaintiff and without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 is also stated to be the resident of Ulligeri village and he also knew about the earlier agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. As such, it is stated, defendant No.4 is not a bonafide purchaser and does not derive any right under the Sale Deed.