H M KUMARASWAMY Vs. T P R RUDRARADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant in O. S. 329 of 1958 on the file of the Munsiff at Tarikere. The decree passed against him by Munsiff has been confirmed on appeal by the Civil Judge at Chikkmagalur.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the still are no longer in dispute. A sister-in-law of the plaintiff respondent had conveyed an areca garden to the defendant appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,000. Simultaneously the defendant had entered into a karar or an agreement undertaking to reconvey the property if the said sum of Rs. 10,000 is paid to him any time before the expiry of five years after the sale to him. The right to obtain reconveyance under the said karar was assigned to the plaintiff by her sister-in-law. The defendant declined to execute reconveyance in plaintiff's favour on the plea among others that the right to obtain reconveyance was personal to the plaintiff's assignor and was not capable of being assigned to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff deposited the money in court and instituted a suit for specific performance which in due course resulted in a decree in plaintiff's favour.

(3.) During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff appears to have made attempts by way of interlocutor's applications to prevent the defendant from harvesting the areca crop which was ripe for plucking some days after the presentation of the plaint therein. Those attempts however failed and the defendant succeeded in harvesting the crop before the decree for specific performance came to be passed.