ANDANUR RAJASHEKAR Vs. VASAVI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for defendant 6 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :

(2.) TO appreciate the substantial questions of law raised by Mr. Raghavendra Rao, certain important facts are required to be noticed. The pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants can be summarised as follows :- The plaintiff is a firm represented by its partners. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot of land Sy. No. 204/1 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas out of 5 acres 29 guntas of Kundavada Village. The suit property originally belonged to one Andanur Basappa of Davanagere. The said property was allotted to him in a family partition. He died on 8.6.1982 leaving behind him the defendants as legal heirs. First defendant is his wife, defendants 2 to 9 are his children and defendant 10 is his daughter-in-law and wife of deceased Andanur Mallashettappa. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 were interested in purchasing the suit schedule property for an industry to be started in the name of Vasavi Industrial Enterprises and for the said purpose, Andanur Basappa was interested in disposing of the plaint schedule property for his family necessities and deeds. Suffice it to say that the said understanding regarding purchase and sale was reduced in writing pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 01.01.1982.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have paid some more money to the legal representatives of deceased Andanur Basappa on 10.07.1982. On 19.08.1982, the widow of Andanur Basappa requested for further amount of Rs. 20,000/- which was paid by the respondents through a cheque and an endorsement was also made on the agreement. The defendants thereafter promised that they would execute a regular conveyance in their favour but however, did not perform their part of the duty in executing the said regular conveyance. Suffice it to say a notice was issued on 11.04.1983 requesting the defendants to come and execute the sale deed. Since nothing transpired after the issuance of notice, the suit is filed for enforcement of the said agreement dated 01.01.1982 and also for such other consequential relief which would flow from the said agreement.