V.Y. GHORPADE Vs. SANDUR UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is aged about 77 years has filed civil petition under Section 24 of code of Civil Procedure to transfer O.S. No. 5/2011 on the file of, Civl Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Sandur Bellary to Civil Judge '(Jr. Dn.) in' Bangalore (Rural).

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed suit in OS. No. 5/2011 against him for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 05.10.1992 for the sale of property of 6.48 acres of land in Sy. No. 189 situated at Lakshmipur, Sandur Taluk contending that under the agreement, it is the duty cost on the respondent herein has to get the suit schedule property converted from agricultural land to non agricultural land use and the sale deed has to be registered. The suit schedule property was converted on 29.02.1996. Despite this, the respondent did not register the sale deed and coerced the petitioner to sign an endorsement dated 23.11.1994 and with the help of the petitioner's elder brother Sri M.Y. Ghorpade, the respondent by force and undue influence, coerced the petitioner to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent company without even getting the sale deed registered. Though the conversion of the suit schedule property was done as early as 29.02.1996, the respondent company did not come forward to execute the sale deed though fully award of the same etc., and the respondent filed the suit contending that the present petitioners who are the defendants has executed an agreement of sale on 05.10.1997 and in terms of the agreement he has to execute the document within the time prescribed. Though the defendant has received entire sale consideration, he has not executed the sale deed. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

(3.) THE respondent -plaintiff filed objection to the petition denied the averments made and specifically contended that if the case of the petitioner is accepted, the respondent would be put to great inconvenience. He also contended that the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No. 3512/2012 was executed at Bangalore. Therefore, it has been filed at Bangalore. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the civil petition.