V.K.RAMEGOWDA Vs. T.SHANKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal by the plaintiff under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 15/9/2010 in O.S.No.92/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara (for short, 'Trial Court"), by which, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs.5,00,000.00 with interest at 12% p.a., refusing the relief of specific performance of contract against the respondents/ defendants.

(2.) Parties would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellant herein was the plaintiff and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the agricultural lands i.e., suit schedule properties and in the month of February 2006, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff with a proposal to sell the suit schedule properties on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants entered into sale agreement dtd. 27/2/2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000.00, out of which, plaintiff paid to defendants an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 through cheque bearing No.597750/- drawn on Canara Bank, Chamarajapet Branch, Bengaluru dtd. 24/2/2006, which was realized by defendant No.1. It is further stated that the agreement of sale dtd. 27/2/2006 was signed by plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the agreement was not signed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. The plaint averments would further indicate that the plaintiff in the month of April 2006 requested defendant No.1 to produce the original documents pertaining to the suit schedule properties so as to get the sale deed registered. But, the defendants replied that the original sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties have been lost and requested him to proceed further on the basis of certified copies. As such, the plaintiff got published paper publication in 'Ee Sanje' Kannada daily newspaper on 25/6/2006, his intention to purchase the properties and with regard to loss of title deeds by the defendants. Further, it is stated that a legal notice came to be issued by defendant Nos.2 to 4 dtd. 5/8/2006, informing the plaintiff not to purchase the suit schedule properties from defendant No.1 since they have interest in the suit schedule properties.