LAWS(KAR)-2015-1-603

B.G. NAGARAJ Vs. N.H. CHANNAVEERAPPA

Decided On January 20, 2015
B.G. Nagaraj Appellant
V/S
N.H. Channaveerappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendant entered into an agreement dated 04.06.2000 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to sell the vacant site bearing No. 46, situated at 2nd/3rd Parallel Road, Shimoga, which is morefully described in the plaint schedule for a total consideration of Rs. 13,34,160/ -. The defendant received an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In terms of the agreement dated 04.06.2000, the transaction should be completed within 21 days from the said date and the expenses to be borne by the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant had claimed that the suit property is free from all encumbrances, charges, etc., and that he would furnish all the documents pertaining to the title to the property, etc. for verification and get the sale deed prepared in respect of the said land. The plaintiff therefore paid an advance amount of Rs. 1 lakh. Thereafter, he requested the defendant to furnish the documents pertaining to the said land and on furnishing the same he is ready to pay the balance amount. The defendant did not come forward to furnish the relevant documents. He went on taking time on one pretext or other. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 24.06.2000, calling upon the defendant to furnish the relevant documents. There was no reply forthcoming to the said notice. Since the documents were not given by the defendant, the transaction failed. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1 lakh paid in good faith. Hence, he filed the instant suit seeking to recover Rs. 1,12,050/ -, along with future interest at 18% per annum.

(3.) On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He contended that the suit is not maintainable. That the plaintiff has issued a notice after expiry of 21 days from the date of the agreement. That there was no need to wait for the original documents since a xerox copy of the documents was already given to the plaintiff. That the previous suit in O.S. No. 461/2000, initiated by the plaintiff, was dismissed. Hence, the present suit was filed only to harass the defendant. That he is not entitled to claim the amount sought for, since it is beyond the time stipulated in the agreement. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: