HAJI D. RASOOL SAB Vs. K.R.RAJESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Sec. 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Ballari in R.A.No.86/2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in O.S.No.46/2004.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under: That the defendant is absolute owner of plots bearing No.11, 12, 17 and 18 situated at T.S.531/1E2, Agadi Mareppa Compound, Sanganakal road, Ballari, which is described in detail in schedule. That, the defendant has agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs.11,88,000.00 i.e. each plot measuring 33 x 45 ft for consideration amount of Rs.2,97,000.00 @ Rs.200.00 per square feet. The agreement was oral agreement and on the date of oral agreement, it was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.1,00,000.00 each in respect of two plots and balance amount of Rs.9,88,000.00 shall be paid on or before the approval of the Government after completing the plot for residential purpose or within three years. It is asserted that as per the agreement, on 2/2/2001, plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000.00 in cash to the defendant towards part consideration and defendant acknowledged the same by issuing receipt for the same. It is also agreed between the parties that the defendant shall receive remaining sale consideration amount within six months with other conditions. It is asserted that the defendant has failed to keep up his words and the plaintiff has made number of requests to the defendant to accept the consideration amount and to execute the sale deed. But the defendant went on evading the same. It is alleged that on 5/8/2003, defendant sent her manager to the residence of plaintiff who requested the plaintiff to deliver the original receipt issued by the defendant dtd. 2/2/2001 for the purpose of verification with a promise of returning the same immediately. Believing the words, the plaintiff had delivered the original receipt and within an hour, the manager re-delivered the said receipt, in which the plaintiff found that the plot No.17 and 18 were deleted and scored off by making corrections in the receipt. It is also contended that some person has put his counter- signature and plaintiff was shocked and enquired with the defendant, but the defendant asserted that due to escalation in price, she is only willing to sell two plots in favour of the plaintiff out of four plots and refused to sell plot No.17 and 18, though she has received part of sale consideration in respect of four plots. It is also alleged that thereafter the defendant all of a sudden issued a legal notice dtd. 11/8/2003 through her counsel by making false allegations and the plaintiff has got issued reply notice dtd. 14/8/2003 and on 20/11/2003 the defendant issued another notice making false allegations. It is also asserted that the plaintiff has issued reply notice on 6/12/2003 and hence, he is compelled to file a suit for specific performance.