SHAFIULLA Vs. KRISHNAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale on 11 -11 -1993 by receiving an advance of Rs. 25,000/ - from him, for sale of the property bearing Khatha No. 230/254 measuring East X West 32 1/2 feet and North X South 25 feet situated at Kanampalli Village, Chintamani Taluk, Chinnasandrra Mandal. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 1,42,000/ -. It was agreed that the suit schedule property would be sold in favour of the plaintiff. That the sale deed would be executed whenever the plaintiff calls upon the 1st defendant to do so, by paying the balance consideration of Rs. 1,17,000/ -. That he has been calling upon the 1st defendant to perform his part of the contract from December, 1993. The plaintiff evaded notice and ultimately refused to execute the sale deed, by stating that he has alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant on 18 -12 -1995. That the 2nd defendant has full knowledge of the agreement of sale between him and the 1st defendant. That both the defendants have colluded with one another and executed a sale deed dated 18 -12 -1995, in order to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiff. That he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance consideration. On failure of the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed, the instant suit was filed to direct execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and consequential reliefs. On service of suit summons, the 1st defendant even though served, did not appear before the Court. He was placed exparte. The 2nd defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. It was contended that the 1st defendant was the owner of the suit schedule property. That the 1st defendant sold the suit schedule property in his favour in terms of the registered sale deed dated 18 -12 -1995 for valuable consideration. Eversince then, he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. He has also paid the relevant taxes on the property. The katha has already been changed into his name. It is a frivolous suit with a view to harass him. That there is collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant which is intended only to deprive the legal right of the 2nd defendant. It was denied that the plaintiff was ready & willing to perform his part of the contract.

(2.) Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following Issues and Additional Issues: - -

(3.) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he was and is ever willing and ready to perform his part of contract?