CHAMPALAL Vs. SUMITHRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant in OS. No. 167 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Shorapur, is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge at Gulbarga in RA. No.157 of 1965, whereby the suit of the respondent was decreed subject to certain conditions in modification of the decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The material facts are as follows: The appellant was a tenant of the respondent in the suit premises. They entered into an agreement of sale on 21-1-1954, under which the defendant-appellant agreed to purchase the suit house for a consideration of Rs.4,000 O.S. (Osmania currency). A sum of Rs.2 150 O.S. was paid by the appellant to the respondent on that day towards part payment of the consideration. The appellant was put in possession of the property by way of part-performance of the contract evidenced by such agreement. According to the respondent, the appellant refused to complete the transaction in fulfilment of the obligations imposed by the agreement in question, inspite of demands by the respondent. Hence the suit for possession. The plea on behalf of the defendant-appellant, in substance, is that the entire balance of consideration for such sale had been paid and discharged by certain adjustments made in the books of account in regard to the Khatha of the father of the respondent and also on account of expenses incurred for repairs. Hence he counter-claimed that the respondent should be called upon to execute the sale deed in question. The trial Court framed the following issues: " 1. Whether the defendant has paid the entire consideration amount as alleged by him? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the house? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits? If so, how much? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable as framed?" After trial on the above issues, it passed a decree in the following terms:

(3.) Against this judgment and decree the defendant has appealed. On behalf of the appellant only one contention has been urged and the same, as set out in ground No. (2) of the memorandum of appeal, reads thus: