LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SUBASH CHANDRA N SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the sale agreement.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit is house premises bearing No.126/22, 17th Main Road, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore which is more particularly described in the suit schedule and hereinafter referred to as schedule property.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs is the Defendant No.1 represented to the plaintiffs that she is the full and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are her children. The suit schedule property was registered before the Sub -Registrar, Bangalore city under a registered sale deed dated 23.5.1966. After purchase, the defendant No.1 has put up a construction of 7 squares. Presently, she is residing in the out house and main house is in the occupation of a tenant. After purchase of the property, the same was vested in the BDA. Under a re -conveyance scheme, the defendant No.1 has to get absolute sale deed from the BDA. The area is within the limits of Corporation. The Corporation has made khatha in her name. She will able to get the absolute sale deed within a short time. The property is un -encumbered and free from litigation. With the above representations, the defendants approached the plaintiffs agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for legal necessities. On such representation, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/ -. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.7.1994 and a sum of Rs.50,000/ - was paid on the date of the agreement. It was duly acknowledged by the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ - on 18 -03 -1995 which was also acknowledged by the first and the second defendants in presence of the witnesses. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of agreement represented that they will obtain the absolute sale deed from the BDA and further they will vacate the main house within a short time and hand over vacant possession to the plaintiffs. But to the shock and surprise of the plaintiffs, the defendants neither obtained the sale deed from the BDA nor evicted the tenant.