A AMEER JAN Vs. R MUDDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants.

(2.) I .A.1/2013 is filed seeking to implead the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1. It was observed by this Court that the said application was misconceived and that if respondent No.1 was dead, the appeal abated against respondent No.1 and it was necessary for the appellants to file appropriate applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the application, setting aside the abatement and an application to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record and it is in that background, I.As. 2, 3 and 4 of 2014 are filed. However, there is a delay of 1955 days, even according to the appellant, in filing the application to bring the legal representatives on record. However, it is to be seen that on merits, the appeal would fail on a primary ground which the Court below has held against the appellants namely the background to the case is as follows:

(3.) THE plaintiffs had sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 21.6.1991 or in the alternative to repay a total sum of Rs.6,75,000/ - paid as an advance amount inclusive of damages and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs and had also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was described as land bearing survey No.33/1B measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Nagavara village, Bangalore North Taluk. The defendants were said to be the joint owners of the suit schedule property and had received an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - as part of the consideration. The balance sale consideration was Rs.5,25,000/ - which was to be paid after completion of the sale transaction. The time fixed to complete the sale transaction was 11 months. The plaintiffs are said to have been put in physical possession and they continued to be in physical possession of the suit property. On 28.5.1994, the defendants are said to have received a further advance of Rs.1,00,000/ - and time to perform the contract was extended for a further period of 6 months. It is the plaintiffs' case that the sale ought to have been completed on or before November, 2004. The sale transaction could not be completed on account of certain proceedings pending between the plaintiffs and Vyalikaval House Building Co -operative Society which society had claim a right in the suit schedule property. It transpires that those proceedings ultimately was before the Supreme Court of India which held against the society and the proceedings initiated in respect of the land were set at naught. Therefore, the plaintiffs had issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed, after culmination of those proceedings, on 4.7.2004 and 7.11.2004 and expressed readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. The notices were said to have been returned unserved. Therefore, since the defendants did not execute the sale deed, a suit was filed.