RAMACHANDRA Vs. RAMAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging judgment and decree dtd. 5/1/2012 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in R.A.no.27/2008 and judgment and decree dtd. 3/10/2007 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ramanagara, in OS.no.25/2003, this appeal is filed.

(2.) Appeal was by plaintiff in OS no.25/2003 for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 25/10/2002 directing defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of garden land bearing Sy.no.69/2, measuring 0.18 guntas (along with bore-well and pump-set installed in it) situated at Kolur village, Malur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk ('Suit Property' for short); direct defendant no.3 to join defendants in execution of sale deed and in case of failure, to have sale deed executed by Court in favour of plaintiff, get it registered as per law etc.

(3.) In plaint, it was stated suit property was ancestral property of defendant no.1. And defendant no.2 was his wife. Further, defendant no.1 had mortgaged suit property with plaintiff on 2/2/2002 by receiving Rs.15,000.00 and delivering possession. From said date, plaintiff was in possession as mortgagee. Thereafter on 25/10/2002, an agreement of sale was executed by defendants no.1 and 2, agreeing to sell suit property to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.1,35,050.00 by receiving Rs.1,20,050.00 as balance sale consideration after deducting mortgage amount of Rs.15,000.00. It was stated agreement was witnessed by Suresh and Chikkaydegowda of Kolur village and defendantsno.1 and 2 agreed to execute sale deed within three months. Thus time as essence of contract. But, when plaintiff approached defendants in December, 2002, demanding execution of sale deed, they postponed it on one or other pretext. Therefore on 28/12/2002, plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon them to execute sale deed. Despite receipt, defendants did not respond. Hence, suit was filed.