SUBBIREDDY Vs. K N SRINIVASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikballapur, in R. A. Nos. 25, 27 and 24 of 1998 respectively in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bagepalli, in O. S. Nos. 214, 216 and 215 of 1991 respectively.

(2.) THESE cases have been taken together for disposal since common questions of law are involved and the matters are similar and the relief sought for is also similar in nature. The parties are referred according to their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) R. S. A. No. 159 of 2001 is arising out of O. S. No. 214 of 1991 and r. A. No. 25 of 1998 respectively. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 214 of 1991 filed a suit against defendants for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 23-1-1982 said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property said to be l/3rd share of defendants to the western side of garden land in survey No. 9 of Kurubarahalli Village, Bagepalli Taluk. The same was agreed to be sold for Rs. 6,000/- and the defendants said to have been received the entire sale consideration as on the date of agreement and plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The suit property is the subject-matter of service inam land and it was regranted in favour of defendants as per the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices abolition Act, 1961. According to the plaintiff, in view of the prohibition in the said Act to alienate the property during the non-alienation period, the defendants had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after completion of the prohibition period. Stating that during the subsistence of agreement between the parties, the defendants tried to deal with the property with some third person and as such, he had to approach the Trial Court even before the expiry of non-alienation period, stating that he is seeking for an order of specific performance and stating further that there remains nothing to perform the contract on the part of the plaintiff except to bear the expenses of stamp duty and registration. The said suit was contested by the defendants stating that the said agreement was not genuine and it was obtained by practicing tricks by the plaintiffs and denied entire averments made in the plaint. It is contended further that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property rather than the defendants are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there is no cause of action. It is further submitted that defendants and plaintiffs are from the same village and the plantiffs brother Chowdareddy used to give financial assistance and that Chowdareddy used to secure documents, pronotes and other securities during the course of said transactions. He had obtained signatures on the blank stamp papers and those documents are converted into sale agreement with the help of attestors and scribe. The defendants have never agreed to sell the suit property and also plaintiff never paid the sale consideration. The agreement cannot be enforced as there is a clear bar of 15 years as per the regrant order. Further, it is submitted that the suit is also barred by limitation as the agreement was dated 23-1-1982 and the suit is filed after expiry of the limitation period. Thus sought for dismissal of the suit.