BASAVARAJU Vs. MAHADEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale executed by the defendant - appellant herein. The agreement for sale was executed by the defendant on 05.06.2007 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/ - by receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - by way of advance. The defendant agreed to secure the RTC extracts, survey sketch and other documents within a period of three months and thereafter execute the registered Sale Deed. He has clearly stated in the agreement that the suit property was absolutely owned by him and he had agreed to execute the registered Sale Deed by receiving the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. When the defendant did not execute the Sale Deed, the plaintiff caused a legal notice issued to the defendant on 17.08.2007. The defendant sent reply admitting the execution of the agreement, but contended that his brothers and his father did not agree for execution of the Sale Deed. This made the plaintiff institute the suit for specific performance. Plaintiff contended that there was partition in the family of the defendant and the suit property had fallen to the share of the defendant and that in collusion with his brothers, the defendant was trying to avoid the execution of the registered Sale Deed. She asserted that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit. He admitted the agreement, but denied the contention of the plaintiff that in the event of his failure to execute the Sale Deed, he had agreed to pay double the earnest money to the plaintiff. He reiterated his stand that the property was standing in the name of his father and therefore he had assured the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the agreement for sale that he would get the khatha changed in his name and execute the registered Sale Deed. But, as the father of the defendant was not agreeable for change of khatha in favour of the defendant, he was unable to execute the Sale Deed.

(3.) ON appeal, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed these findings, after re -appreciating the evidence on record.