R SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. MUNICHINNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent remains absent. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court, it was the case of the plaintiff that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, to purchase a parcel of land measuring 40 feet by 150 feet in Survey No. 71/5 of Kavalbyrasandra, bangalore North Taluk. The sale price agreed upon was Rs. 16000/-. The agreement was dated 21.4.1980. An advance amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. The land in question was agricultural land. which was sought to be sold by the vendor as a house site/s. The sale transaction was to be completed. by the execution and registration of a sale deed, within three months from the date of the agreement. The defendant did not abide by the agreement and failed to execute the sale deed on the expiry of the time agreed upon. The plaintiff had issued a notice and followed up with a suit for specific performance of contract as on 2.8.1980, as the defendant failed to respond.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the court below has thought it fit to award only twice the amount of the advance price, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, as compensation. It is contended that the court below has held that the alleged loss on account of the breach of contract could not be assessed on the basis on which the plaintiff was claiming since the land in question continued to be treated as agricultural land, for the record by the competent authority though the environs of the suit property consisted of similar lands but were completely built up and were no longer under cultivation, as was the case with the suit property, which was also intended to be built upon. This reasoning of the court below according to the learned counsel for the appellant is divorced from reality and contends that there was need for a more pragmatic approach, in the interest of justice while considering the grant of an equitable relief.

(3.) In the height of the above the points for consideration are: