MUNIYAMMA Vs. BHAGYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2020 for condonation of delay of 1693 days in filing the appeal.

(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 had offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.1,10,000.00. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property. Accordingly, on 12/11/2009, defendant No.1 has executed the registered agreement of sale and has received an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 as part of sale consideration before the witnesses and has affixed her signature agreeing to the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. The defendant No.1 had agreed to execute the registered sale deed within one year by receiving balance consideration. When the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 several times and requested to execute the registered sale deed, defendant No.1 postponed the same on one or other pretext. Suspecting the bonafide of defendant No.1, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice to defendant No.1 on 27/7/2010 calling upon her to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,000.00. Inspite of receipt of legal notice on 31/7/2010, defendant No.1 has not complied the notice by executing the sale deed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

(3.) On receiving the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that she was not having exclusive right or possession over the suit schedule property. It is contended that there is no partition between defendant No.1 and her mother with respect to the suit schedule property. Hence, the Trial Court framed the issues with regard to proving of the sale agreement and also ready and willingness and issue No.4 is also framed with regard to defence which has been taken by the defendants. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the documents at Ex.P.1 to 7 and the evidence of defendant No.1 who has been examined as D.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.2 to D.W.4 and considering Ex.D.1 and 2, directed defendant No.1 to execute the registered sale deed to an extent of 3/4th share of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within three months and on failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it executed through the Court Commissioner.