SIDDALINGESHWARAYYA Vs. VEERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, by the plaintiff of an original suit bearing No.116/1999, pending on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Haveri, The respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit. The said suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property bearing CTS No.1642/A/1B, which consists of a house and open space, as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The Plaintiff is stated to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, on the strength of a sale deed executed in his favour by one Rajashekhar Shivappa Yalimalli on 1/7/1997 for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/ -. The plaintiff is sated to be in lawful possession of the same ever since the sale deed executed by Rajashekhar Shivappa Yalimalli and that the defendants have no manner of right title or interest over the schedule property. Since, the defendants tried to interfere with the title and possession, he had to file declaration of title for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a detailed return statement. They have admitted the title set up by the plaintiff on the strength of the sale deed executed by Rajashekhar Shivappa Yalimalli. According to the defendants the plaintiff has agreed to sell the entire suit schedule property.

(3.) ACCORDING the to the defendants, the plaintiff is stated to have agreed to execute a regular sale deed in respect of an open space measuring 20.53 sq.mtr. for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/ - on 8/3/1999 and had received a sum of Rs.45,000/ - from the first defendant and had put the first defendant in possession of the open space on 8/3/1999 itself. It is the further case of the defendants that on 18/1/1999, the plaintiff had agreed to execute a regular sale deed for a total consideration of Rs.8,00,000/ - and in this regard, plaintiff is stated to have received sum of Rs.7,00,000/ - as advance on 18/1/1999. The plaintiff is stated to have put the defendant in possession of the schedule house and as such the defendants are stated to be in possession of the open space as well as the house, in part performance of the contract. Hence, they had prayed for dismissal of the suit.