C.K. NARENDRANATH Vs. MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 6503/1995. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14 -12 -2007 passed by the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dismissing the application I.A. No. XIV filed under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner filed O.S. No. 6503/1995 on the file of the 39th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore seeking for specific performance of contract dated 7 -6 -1995 entered into between the plaintiff and defendants and directed the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule "A  and "B  properties after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ - (Rupees two crores only). As on the date of agreement of sale, it was alleged that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards part performance of the contract. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and prepared to pay the balance sale price, the defendants did not turn up and they were making efforts to alienate the property in favour of the third party. In view of that, the suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the contract dated 7 -6 -1995.

(3.) ON the basis of the memos filed by defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 14, the Trial Court by its order dated 12 -1 -1999 directed the plaintiff to deposit the entire balance sale consideration within a specific period. The order dated 12 -1 -1999 passed by the Trial Court was challenged in CRP No. 468/1999 by the plaintiff alleging that there were several statutory requirements to be complied with before execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, O.S. No. 10427/1988 filed by the defendants for partition is pending consideration and income tax clearance has also not been obtained. Hence, the direction of the Trial Court that the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration is contrary to law. This Court by an order dated 23 -10 -2003 allowed the revision petition setting aside the order dated 12 -1 -1999 directing the petitioner to deposit the entire balance sale consideration. Further observed that the contention of the defendants that they were ready and willing to execute the sale deed is not bona fide and reserved liberty to the parties to agitate their respective rights and contentions on merits. After remand, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 14 under Order 12, Rule 6 of CPC on 22.12.2005 seeking for passing of the judgment and decree in respect of the suit schedule properties on the basis of the admission made by the defendants in the memos filed on 23 -11 -1998 and 5 -1 -1999. In support of his application, the plaintiff has contended that the suit for partition filed by the parties has been settled out of Court and another suit filed by Chandrasekhar in O.S. No. 3905/1996 is also dismissed. Further there is no statutory requirement of obtaining the clearance from the Income Tax Department and also Urban Land Ceiling Department and requested the Court to pass the judgment and decree in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property belonging to the defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 14.