YOGAMBIKA Vs. NARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1991 passed by the learned III Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No. 2205/82. The respondent is the defendant. The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 29.4.1980 and also for possession of the suit schedule property.

(2.) The trial Court though has held issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs but has refused to pass a decree for specific performance on the ground that it is not a case for granting such a decree. Accordingly, it has passed a decree for refund of a sum of Rs. 37,000/- with intetest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 5,000/- from 29.3.1980; on Rs. 20,000/- from 28/29 April, 1980 and on Rs. 12,000/- from 16.9.1981. The current interest on Rs. 37,000/- is also awarded at the same rate. The future or further interest from the date of decree till realisation has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs. 37,000/-.

(3.) It is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs that the respondent-defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-; that on 29.3.1960 a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given as advance through a cheque and the respondent executed the receipt for having received the said sum that a further sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid on 29.4.1980 and a formal Deed of Agreement to sell was executed; that according to the terms of the agreement the defendant was under an obligation to have the mortgage created in favour of the Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chamarajapet discharged and also to obtain a sale deed from the Bangalore Development Authority on the expiry of ten years and execute the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff; that in the meanwhile the suit schedule property was put up for auction by the Bangalore Central Co operative Bank that plaintiff-1 paid the instalment of Rs.12,000/- which was due to the Bank and got the auction sale postponed; that the 1 st plaintiff has been demanding the defendant to perform his part of the agreement; but the defendant has all along been postponing on the pretext of ill health of the members of his family; that the first plaintiff called upon the defendant to perform his part by a registered letter dated 7.2.1981 and also gave a legal notice dated 21.12.1961; that the first plaintiff has been and is always ready and willing to perform her part that even then the defendant did not execute the sale deed though called upon by notice. Hence the case of the plaintiffs is that they had no other option but to approach the Court for the reliefs as stated above.