SRIRAMAPPA Vs. MUNEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellants, arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.123/2010, in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Chickballapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court"), seeking specific performance of the contract.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the defendants executed an agreement for sale in his favour on the date 21/12/2006, agreeing to sell the suit schedule immovable property in his favour for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.14,50,000.00 and received an advance amount of Rs.10,50,000.00 on the date of the agreement. It was agreed under the said agreement that, within eight months from the date of the agreement, the vendor should collect and clear all the necessary and relevant documents and receive the balance sale consideration to execute a registered Sale Deed. It is further contended in the plaint that though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants taking the contention that a petition is pending before the Court of the Assistant Commissioner under the PTCL Act and that they would execute the Sale Deed after the disposal of the said petition, dragged on the matter. In spite of issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendants, they failed to execute the Sale Deed, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the present suit, seeking the relief of specific performance.

(3.) In response to the summons served upon them, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their Written Statement, denying all the plaint averments and contending that the suit was barred by limitation. They also contended that, as per the plaint averments, the plaint schedule property comes under the purview of the provisions of the PTCL Act, as such, the agreement itself is not enforceable. They further contended that, they never executed any kind of document in favour of the plaintiff. With this they sought for dismissal of the suit.