MANJULA Vs. M.R. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants were related to each other and on the representation of the defendant that she was the owner of the suit schedule property bearing No. 30, khata No. 691/1173 in the layout formed on the converted land bearing Survey No. 190/2A of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet and consisting of a small house. The defendant claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property from one Venkatamma, under a registered deed dated 11.8.1994. There were documents to indicate that the land was indeed converted from agricultural to non -agricultural purposes. There was a map indicating the suit property as site No. 30 and therefore had entered into a sale agreement, wherein the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/ -. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ - by way of cheque, which was duly encashed by the defendant and on 1.8.2005, the plaintiff is said to have paid a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - by way of cheque. It was also claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff was to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/ - for the sale transaction to be complete. The sale transaction was to be completed by paying the balance amount. It transpires that in terms of the agreement, it was understood that the defendant would continue to be in possession of the 4 square RCC roofed house, which was situate on the suit schedule property, till her death. Subject to the same, the sale deed was to be executed. It transpires that the plaintiffs husband had prepared a draft sale deed and had presented it to the defendant for approval. The defendant on noticing that the draft sale deed did not contain any clause conferring a right on the defendant to remain in possession of the 4 square house, situated on the suit schedule property, had flatly refused and rejected the proposed sale as there was clear breach of the terms of the agreement. It is in this background that the suit for specific performance was filed.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the court below had framed the following issues: