SARASWATHAMMA Vs. RAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which originally belonged to Smt. Mallamma W/o. Gopalappa and Smt. Venkatamma W/o. Narayanappa. On 18.06.1997, they had agreed to sell the property and executed a sale agreement and delivered possession of the schedule property and also handed over the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. On 24.01.2003, both Smt. Mallamma and Smt. Venkatamma executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and all the revenue documents have been transferred to the name of the plaintiff. The defendant who has no manner of right, title possession over the schedule property attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. On 20.07.2003, the defendant along with supporters came near the property and threatened the plaintiff and also made attempts to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, he filed the instant suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) ON service of notice, defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments contending that the schedule property originally belonged to the father -in -law of the defendant and Sy. No. 13 originally measuring 4 acres 30 guntas including 2 acres of kharab. Out of this, 2 acres of land has been gifted to Smt. Mallamma and Smt. Venkatamma by the father -in -law of the defendant i.e., father of Mallamma and Venkatamma. The said Mallamma and Venkatamma had approached the defendant expressing their intention to sell the property for a valuable consideration of Rs. 40,000/ - and the defendant accepted the offer and on 20.11.1997. Both Mallamma and Venkatamma by receiving advance amount of Rs. 30,000/ - from the defendant executed sale agreement in favour of the defendant in respect of the schedule property in the presence of witnesses. They also agreed to receive the balance sale consideration Rs. 10,000/ - from the defendant at the time of registration. It is further contended that the defendant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but Smt. Mallamma and Smt. Venkatamma refused to perform their part of contract. In this regard, on 21.03.2002, defendant issued a legal notice and filed the suit in O.S. No. 46/2003 for specific performance which is pending. Hence, it is pleaded that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) WHAT order and decree -