SRI. H. VISHWANATHA Vs. SMT. RAMAKKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. 903/2004. Suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of the contrary has been dismissed by considered judgment passed on 2.7.2012. It is this judgment and decree, which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondents herein were defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the absolute owners of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 15/3 measuring 2.30 acres inclusive 16 guntas of Kharab land. The said land is situated at Pillaganahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and the same is described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The suit schedule property was purchased by A.G. Ramaiah, husband of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 under a registered sale deed dated 6.12 1990 and after his death, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have succeeded to the estate and therefore, they are the joint owners of the suit schedule property.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were in financial crisis and hence they decided to sell the suit schedule property and in this regard, they approached plaintiff with an offer to sell the schedule property. After due deliberation, sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 26,50,000/ - and accordingly, Agreement of Sale was entered into between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on 25.11.2002. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had agreed to get the land converted to residential purposes at their costs and in case any acquisition proceedings were to be initiated, the plaintiff would get the same cleared. Out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 26,50,000/ -, Rs. 10,00,000/ - was paid to the defendants as advance is the averment.

(3.) THE plaintiff came to know that KIADB was intending to acquire the suit schedule property and hence, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 postponed the execution of the sale deed in the favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 challenged the acquisition in W.P. 34734/2003 to quash the acquisition proceedings. In this regard, plaintiff is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards the litigation expenses. Inspite of executing the sale deed as agreed, the defendant executed a sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and the said sale deed is stated to be sham and collusive.