JAYAMMA Vs. VENKATESH SHETTY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 70 of 2003 has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R. A. No. 73 of 2007 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 5-2-2008, by which, the judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Kolar, dated 21-6-2007 has been set aside by allowing the appeal holding the that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance. Secondly, the defendant is directed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant within a period of two months from the date of decree by receiving the balance sale consideration, failing which, the plaintiff would be at liberty to seek execution of the said decree and obtain a regular sale deed through the Court Commissioner.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

(3.) Respondent 1 is the plaintiff, who filed O.S. No. 70 of 2003 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26-9-2001. According to him, defendant 1 is the owner of suit schedule properties and she was in peaceful possession of the same. On 26-9-2001, she expressed her intention to sell the same on account of legal and family needs. On that day, she executed a registered agreement to sell the suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 87,000.00 and received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 66,000.00 in the presence of witnesses. She agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,000.00 at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he approached her for execution of the sale deed in his favour on receipt of the balance sale consideration. But she did not heed to his request. She evaded the requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and prepared to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,000.00 to defendant 1. As defendant 1 did not come forward to register the sale deed in his favour in respect of suit items, he got issued legal notice dated 21-1-2003 to her, but she sent an untenable reply. According to the plaintiff, defendant 1 executed a registered sale deed in respect of Sy. No. 212, measuring 0.183/4 guntas in favour of defendant 2, which is illegal and opposed to law. Hence, she filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of agreement dated 26-9-2001.