B.S.LAKSHMAN Vs. PUTTASHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding passed in R.A.No.119/2016 dtd. 11/8/2022 partly allowing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.194/2012 dtd. 17/12/2016 with regard to the relief of specific performance is concerned.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance of contract that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and he has offered to sell the suit schedule property for his family necessity and for discharging the loans. The defendant has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for Rs.1,06,000.00 and defendants have received the entire sale consideration and executed the sale agreement dtd. 29/4/2000. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendants have agreed to hand over the possession and the original documents to the plaintiff. Since, there is a non-alienation clause, had agreed to execute the sale deed after the expiry of said non-alienation clause. It is contended that immediately after the expiry of 15 years of non-alienation period, the plaintiff caused the legal notice and reply was given by the defendants denying the very execution of the sale agreement. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance on contract.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement denied the very execution of the sale agreement and also contend that when the grant was made in the year 1997, Government has imposed a condition that defendants have no right to alienate the property for a period of 15 years and as on the date of alleged agreement, the defendants have no right to execute the sale agreement. It is contended that the defendants are illiterate and innocent persons and plaintiff being an advocate, taken a signatures of defendants on the blank paper for the purpose of loan and defendants believe the words of the plaintiff, handed over the documents to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the defendants never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and not received any amount from him and hence, the alleged agreement is void and it cannot be enforceable under law.