RAMAKKA Vs. K MUNIAPPA ALIAS DODDANNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. It is directed against the judgment and decree made by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore, in R.A. No, 58 of 1966, which reversed the judgment and decree made by the Addl. Second. Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 408 of 1964. This is a defendant's appeal. It is directed against the judgment and to sell several items of. immoveable properties-alleged to have been entered into by the appellant-first- defendant- with the first respondent-plaintiff, on. 24-4-1957. 3 he consideration stipulated under tha agreement instated to be Rs. 8,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 6,000 is alleged to have: been paid on the date of agreement of sale and the balance of Rs, 2,000 having been agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. It would appear that at or about the time this agreement was entered into there was a litigation going on between the appellant herein on the one side and one Ghannappa and her father-in-law on the other. The suit in question, was in respect of the title and possession of the present suit schedule properties and it was O. S. No. 156 of 1957 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore. It is also the case of the first respondent that he took possession of the properties from Channappa, the judgment-debtor in that suit, diretly by way of part-performance of the suit agreement to sell. There are some other small details to which it is unnecessary to refer for my present purpose.

(2.) The defence of the appellant, niter alia, is one of denial of execution of the agreement in question. The trial Court after an exhaustive consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that this defence was true and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the learned Civil Judge, reversed the said judgment and decree and decreed the suit for specific performance. Hence this appeal by the first defendant. On behalf of the appellant, the principal contention urged is that the judgment in appeal has been clearly vitiated in that there has been no judicial approach to the evidence in the case and the judgment of the trial Court. In elaboration, it is urged by Sri T. Lakshminarasimha Iyengar, the learned Counsel, that the evidence has been rather mechanically dealt with without reference to the material points and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff. Further, the reasoning of the trial Court has been almost totally ignored and this clearly is an erroneous approach to the case in appeal. Indeed, he invited attention to certain- portions of the judgment in appeal and also of the trial Court as typical of the mechanical and rather unjudicial approach to the evidence.

(3.) I have been taken through the judgment ip. appeal and I have also gone through the judgment of the trial Court. It seems to me that the learned Civil Judge has not found fault with the reasoning of the trial Court in regard to the findings on the various issues in the case. It is also seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the learned Munsiff has adverted to the demeanour of the witnesses. As for example in regard to PW-2, the scribe of the agreement this is what he says: