H P CHOWDAIAH Vs. CHOWDAIAH ALIAS KARE CHOWDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal against concurrent findings of fact.

(2.) APPELLANT instituted OS No.279/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,], Madhugiri, for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.7.1992, agreeing to convey the suit schedule property being 1 acre 20 guntas from out of 10 acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.10, located on its southern side, situated at Aralimaradahalli, Puravara Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, bounded on the:

(3.) THE plaint averments disclose that the suit schedule property was owned by the 1st Defendant who received Rs. 2,500/ - from the plaintiff on 15.9.1987, since in dire need of finances and put the plaintiff in possession of the said property in lieu of interest, and ever since then has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The 1st Defendant, it is said, on 10.7.1992 having found the necessity for some more money, received Rs. 9,500/ - and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs. 12,000/ - [Rs. 2,500/ - received on 15.9.1987 + Rs. 9,500/ - received on 10.7.1992] and executed the Agreement of Sale dated 10.7.1992, agreeing to execute and lodge for registration the sale deed after obtaining entries in his name in the RTC pahanis in respect of said property. It was alleged that despite reasonable requests and reminders, the 1st Defendant failed to obtain change of khata and execute the sale deed. In addition, it was contended that the plaintiff received the suit summons in OS No.363/1995 instituted by the 1st Defendant, arraigning the plaintiff as defendant for permanent injunction on the allegation that the 2nd Defendant had attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property. It was further averred that on enquiry it revealed that the 1st Defendant had executed a sale deed conveying the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd Defendant although 2nd Defendant was fully aware of the Agreement dated 15.9.1987 and 10.7.1992 and therefore the purchase of the suit schedule property by the 2nd Defendant was not as a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.