K THAMMAIAH Vs. PAPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal of defendants is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Civil Judge at Manyya in O.S. No. 49/1971 on his life. The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff and the appellants were the defendants. In the course of this order, we will refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff brought the suit for specific performance of the obligations of the defendants in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Exhibit-Pi, the suit document and agreement to sell, dated July 8, 1971, certain agricultural land bearing S. No. 145/1 (Old No. 898) in Mandya (Kasba). The extent of the land agreed to be sold R.16 under Exhibit-Pi was 1 acre and 22 guntas for a consideration of Rs. 27,390/- and a sum of Rs 11,000/- was paid on the date of the agreemeni and the balance was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of the execution and registration of the deed of sale. The plaintiff was required to have the property conveyed to him within three months from the date of the agreement on performing his part of the agreement and the defendants were required to convey the same at the expense of the plaintiff, the property in question free from all encumbrances including charges of land revenue etc. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but the defendants were putting off the execution of the sale deed for one or the other reason. In that circumstance, he got issued notice as per Exhibii-D1 dated September 28, 1971, through his Counsel setting out the terms of the agreement, his willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement and calling upon them to perform their part; he also put them on notice that if they failed to perform the agreement, he would proceed to institute a suit for specific performance. That notice was replied to as per Exhibit- P9 issued through Counsel of defendants bearing the date September 30.1971. In that reply, the defendants admitted their liability and expressed their willingness to convey the suit schedule property provided the plaintiff performed his obligations under the agreement such as payment of the balance of consideration and the expense of conveyance The only point which they disputed in the reply to Exhibit-Dl was that the plaintiff was put in possession of 1 acre and 22\ guntas at at the time of agreement to sell and his claim for 10 guntas shortage in Exhibit-Dl was not correct. Thereafter, there appears to have been some exchange of correspondence as to the time and place at which the parties should meet. It is not in dispute that the defendants received by cheque the amount for purchase of stamp paper of proper value for deed of conveyance.

(3.) There is no dispute that parties were to be present in the Office o! the Sub Registrar on October 7, 1971. The plaintiff asserted that he went to the Office of the Sub Registrar on that date at 8 a.m. and waited till 5 p.m. and did not find the defendants putting in appearance as agreed to before. The defendants denied that they were absent On the other hand, they contended that they were present there at the Office of the Sub Registrar from morning till 3pm. on that date. The plaintiff did not put in appearance and therefore the defendants had to return without executing any sale deed. The defendants on October 7, 1971, itself got issued a notice as per Exhibit-P23(a) by which they repudiated the contract as per Exhibit-Pi and denied that they had any further obligation and demanded that the plaintiff deliver possession of the suit land of which he was in possession from the date of the agreement of sale.