SUJATHA Vs. RADHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are arising out of the common judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010, passed in R.A. Nos. 2/2007 and 3/2007, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri, wherein the judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 101/2004 for the relief of specific performance is confirmed by dismissing R.A. No. 3/2007 and rejection of the suit for the relief of injunction filed by the appellants herein is dismissed in confirming the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 81/2004, by dismissing R.A. No. 2/2007.

(2.) The brief facts leading to these two second appeals are as under:

(3.) The admitted facts are that, on 18.05.1991 one Virappa Pattanashetty, 9th respondent in RSA. No. 5369/2010, who is also the first defendant in OS. No. 101/2004 entered into an agreement with one Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni, sister of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 7 in OS. No. 101/2004 and also sister of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the said suit, for sale of suit schedule property, which is common in both suits. The agreement dated 18.05.1991 was executed by Virappa Pattanashetty for valuable consideration of Rs. 31,000/-. At that time, he received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni agreeing to execute the sale deed in her favour as and when he is called upon to do so by receiving balance sale consideration. It is necessary to mention that no time frame was fixed for payment of balance sale consideration and it was stated that as and when the purchaser call upon the vendor, he will execute the sale deed. It is seen that subsequent to agreement of sale, purchaser Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni died on 27.05.1995. Thereafter the land continued to be under the cultivation and enjoyment of Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni's parents, brothers and sisters.