MALLAPPA Vs. VEERESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and Decree dtd. 29/11/2007 passed in Regular Appeal No.111 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Dharwad, confirming the Judgment and Decree dtd. 13/3/2003 in Original Suit No.51 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and Principal JMFC at Dharwad, decreeing the suit in part.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the property bearing survey No.20/A/1A/1B2/A/1A of Kamalapura Village, Dharwad. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No.1. It is further averred that the defendant No.1 was intending to purchase an alternative property at Hombardi village of Haveri Taluk and as such, he intended to sell six guntas of land for total consideration of Rs.9,000.00; and as such, the plaintiff paid Rs.3,000.00 as advance on 28/8/1974 and executed the agreement of Sale. It is also averred that the defendant No.1 delivered the possession of the property in question to the plaintiff. Again on 30/9/1974, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell eight guntas of land and as such, received Rs.13,000.00 in advance. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant No.1 has received a total amount of Rs.16,000.00 as advance to sell the suit schedule property i.e. six guntas plus eight guntas. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount for execution of the registered sale deed, however, the rider in the sale agreement was that the defendants have to obtain permission from the government to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached defendants on several occasions, however, the defendants postponed the execution of the registered sale deed and as such, the plaintiff caused notice dtd. 14/12/1996 to the defendants for which defendants have not responded. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit seeking specific relief of agreements dtd. 28/8/1974 and 30/9/1974.