SHANTHA KUMARI Vs. SRI. V.N. SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in original suit bearing No. 2609/1993 on the file of 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.12.06, has filed the present appeal. Respondent herein was the plaintiff in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their status in the said suit. Suit had been filed against State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore, as defendant No. 2 since it had granted loan to defendant No. 1 on deposit of title deeds of suit property with it and subsequently defendant No. 2 was got deleted from the cause -title.

(2.) PLAINTIFF had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant seeking to restrain the defendant or anybody claiming under her from interfering with his peaceful possession of a residential house bearing No. 423, 11th 'B' Main, J.P. Nagar I Phase, Bangalore City, on the ground that she had agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/ - (Rupees four lakhs) vide Agreement of Sale dated 08.03.1993 and that on the same day she had received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees two lakhs) as advance on 08.03.1993 itself and that she had put him in physical possession of the suit property. As per the written agreement of sale dated 08.03.1993 the plaintiff had agreed to complete the entire sale transaction within six months form 08.03.1993 by paying the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. This suit for permanent injunction came to be filed on 16.04.1993.

(3.) ON 20.8.1993, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to get the plaint amended for inclusion of few paragraphs in relation to Rs. 50,000/ - each paid to the defendant on 18.3.1993, 21.3.1993 and 24.3.1993 respectively at her request as additional advance and for the relief of specific performance of the contract and alternatively for refund of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs received as advance amount. The said application came to be allowed after contest and amended plaint was filed in the Trial Court. According to the plaintiff the defendant had not issued receipts for Rs. 50,000/ - each on 18th, 21st, and 24th March and that on insistence to issue receipts, she sent three receipts dated 18th, 21st and 24th March 1993 through a covering letter dated 24.04.1993 and therefore he could not mention about the payment of additional advance on these three dates, in the plaint filed on 16.04.1993 and therefore amendments became inevitable.