M APPAIAH AND ORS Vs. CHOTESAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 188/2-B, measuring 6 guntas situated at Karaloor Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru District, as described in the plaint schedule. The defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit schedule property of the agricultural land with the plaintiffs on 03.10.1988, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- which was fully paid to the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiffs were put in possession. In view of the enactment in force of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the sale deed was deferred. Hence, the defendant executed a registered simple mortgage deed on the same day. The condition of the agreement was that the sale deed would be executed after the repeal of the said Act. The case of the plaintiffs is that after the Act was repealed, they approached the defendant and requested to execute the sale deed. The defendant went on promising to do so, but, did not execute the sale deed. A legal notice was issued to the defendant. There was no reply to the same. Hence, the instant suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

(3.) On service of suit summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. He contended that he being the owner of the suit schedule property, but, however, denied the allegation that he has entered into an agreement of sale. The question of receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- does not arise for consideration. The plaintiffs were never put in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant has not entered into an agreement to sell. The suit is barred by limitation, since it is filed three years after the repeal of the said Act.