LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-597

LINGARAJAMMA Vs. N. SATHISH KUMAR

Decided On June 16, 2023
Lingarajamma Appellant
V/S
N. Sathish Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/3/2017 passed in R.A.No.33/2014 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at Bhadravathi and also the judgment and decree dtd. 5/6/2014 passed in O.S.No.13/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Bhadravathi.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendants have executed the sale agreement in terms of Ex.P1 for a sum of Rs.6,35,000.00 and received an advance amount of Rs.6.00 Lakhs and the balance was payable at the time of registration. The defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, notice was issued in terms of Ex.P13, the same was also served on the defendants and no reply was given and without any other alternative remedy, the plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of Specific Performance.

(3.) The defendants in terms of the written statement contended that the second defendant is a businessman and he was not able to concentrate in agricultural activities. So, he has sold the same, but not site or house properties. To expand his business, the second defendant requested the document writer Govinda to arrange certain amount. The plaintiff was introduced to the second defendant by the said Govinda. The plaintiff informed that unless security is given to him, he is not prepared to advance any loan. The second defendant was in need of money for immediate business purpose. So, he agreed to execute the document as desired by the plaintiff. After the execution of the document the plaintiff has paid only Rs.2,00,000.00 and agreed to pay the balance within short period. The second defendant is regularly paying interest of Rs.2.5 per month to the bank account of Govinda and Chandrashekhar. The present market value of the suit property is not less than to Rs.40.00 to 45 lakhs. Even as on the date of the alleged sale agreement, the suit property was valued more than to Rs.30.00 to 35 lakhs. The defendants have no occasion to sell the suit property for Rs.6,35,000.00. The plaintiff has misused the confidence and filed the false suit.