KRISHNA S. NARASINGH SHERKHANE Vs. DODDAWWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal originating from the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2005 passed by the lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 41/1999, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the suit property herein is claimed by the plaintiff as the property agreed to be sold by late Sri Sangappa Shivalingappa Malali in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 1.1.1990 for sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ - against which an earnest money of Rs. 40,000/ - is said to have been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the legal heirs of late Sri Sangappa Shivalingappa Malali i.e., the defendants in the original suit for specific performance of contract dated 1.1.1990. The defendants contested the suit and denied the execution of the agreement of sale by Sri Sangappa Shivalingappa Malali and receipt of earnest money of Rs. 40,000/ -. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit against which an appeal was preferred, which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Ex. P.1, the agreement of sale specifically contains the serial number and the name of Sri Sangappa Shivalingappa Malali for having purchased the stamp paper of Rs. 10/ - and the same is admitted by the licenced stamp vendor D.W. 4. P.W. 2 also has adduced evidence to the effect that the sale agreement was executed by Sangappa Malali after receiving the earnest money of Rs. 40,000/ - against the sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/ -, supporting the evidence of P.W. 1. It is also contended that the Courts below without appreciating the evidence on record and mainly relying on the criminal cases said to have been filed by the defendants against the appellant have come to a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove Ex. P.1, agreement of sale.