SANJEEVAPPA Vs. NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No.1.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he had acquired the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dtd. 12/1/1995 and defendant No.1 has offered to sell the suit schedule property and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs.63,000.00 and accordingly, the defendant No.1 received the advance amount of Rs.5,000.00 and executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. In the agreement of sale, it was mentioned that the plaintiff shall get the registered sale deed within three months by paying balance sale consideration amount of Rs.58,000.00. The plaintiff, after securing the balance consideration, approached the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, but, the defendant No.1 demanded more consideration and refused to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice dtd. 24/12/1999 asking the defendant No.1 to be present in the Sub-registrar office on 10/1/2000. The defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the defendant No.1, colluding with defendant No.2, who in his wife's name conducting civil disputes for the last 20 years against the plaintiff and inspite of knowledge of agreement in favour of the plaintiff, got executed nominal sale deed dtd. 10/1/2000. As on that date, the defendant No.1 had no saleable interest and by virtue of sale deed, no right, title and possession passed to defendant No.2. On coming to know about nominal sale deed, the plaintiff got issued notice to both the defendants to execute the sale deed in her favour. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed and defendant No.1 had not taken the notice but, defendant No.2 though received the notice, has not given any reply. Hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance.

(3.) Pursuant to the suit summons issued to both the defendants, they appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement and in their written statement, except admitting that defendant No.1 was the owner, all other averments are denied. It is their contention that, defendant No.1 has not at all executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and her signatures have been forged and the alleged agreement has been concocted. It is contended that, on 17/8/1999, the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with defendant No.2 to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.55,000.00 and received advance amount of Rs.5,000.00 and pursuant to the said agreement, executed sale deed on 1/1/2000 and put defendant No.2 in possession. By virtue of the sale deed, the mutation has been accepted in the name of defendant No.2 and RTC entries have been changed to his name and he is in enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since, the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiff false, there was no need to reply. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.