SATISH Vs. HASMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Regular Second Appeals are filed by plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 19/6/2012 passed in Regular Appeals No.247 and 248 of 2010 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for brevity), confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 28/7/2010 passed in Original Suit No.398 of 2007 and 138 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity), dismissing the suit of plaintiffs.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties to these appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) The relevant facts for adjudication of these appeals are that, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.398 of 2007 on the file of the trial Court, seeking specific performance of contract with consequential relief of injunction and further, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.138 of 2008 seeking declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, defendants 1 to 7 are the owners of the schedule property and defendants No.1 to 7 have executed three agreements of sale with defendants 8 to 11 on 21/6/1987, 14/12/1987 and 21/3/1993, agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties at the rate of Rs.11,000.00 per gunta and as such, received Rs.16,000.00 as advance amount. Pursuant to same, actual physical possession of the suit schedule property was given to defendants No.8 to 11 and in view of the statutory restriction of sale for a period of 15 years as contemplated in Form No.10, since the subject land was granted to defendants No.1 to 7 under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, defendants 1 to 7 were not able to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants 8 to 11. In the meanwhile, defendants 8 to 11, have filed Original Suit No.25 of 2003 before the trial Court seeking relief of injunction against the defendants 1 to 7 and the said suit came to be decreed on 16/4/2003. Defendants 1 to 7 have preferred Regular Appeal No.154 of 2003 against the judgment and decree dtd. 16/4/2003 passed in Original Suit No.25 of 2003 and the said appeal was allowed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as there was a remedy for filing the suit for specific performance by defendants 8 to 11. It is also averred in the plaint that, defendants 8 to 11 have executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiffs on 23/9/2003 for the purpose of institution of the suit for specific performance and accordingly, Original Suit No.285 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 6 before the trial Court. It is further averred that, plaintiffs were interested in purchasing the suit schedule property from defendants 8 to 11 or from the defendants 1 to 7 and as such, plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 26/1/2003 with defendants 8 to 11 agreeing to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.6,00,000.00 and the plaintiffs have paid Rs.2,00,000.00 to defendants 8 to 11 as advance amount. It is further averred in the plaint that, plaintiffs were always ready and willing to purchase the suit schedule property, however, since the three agreements of sale referred to above were not converted into registered sale deed, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.398 of 2007 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement and also filed Original Suit No.138 of 2008 seeking declaration with consequential relief of injunction.