SHYAMALABAI Vs. S SAHASWATHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision by defendants 5 to 8 in original suit No. 7339 of 1993 Pending on the File of Learned v Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is directed againat the order i.e.; judgment' dated September 22, 1995 passed on la. No. 20 filed by plaintiff under order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('c.p.c.' for short) allowing in part plaintiffs claim for specific performance of the contract of sale against respondents 1 to 4, who are defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit, on the basis of their admission made in their written statement and in their statement filed in response to plaintiffs i.a. No. 20.

(2.) i have heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides. Since the very maintainability of this revision was seriously challenged by respondent 5 (plaintiff) the learned counsel for both parties were heard on the point of its maintainability. The material facts of the case are as stated under; respondent 5 filed the said suit i.e., original suit No. 7339 of 1993, in the court below against the petitioners herein arraying them as defendants 5 to 8; and against respondents 1 to 4 as defendants 1 to 4, respectively. The main relief prayed by him at para 17 of the plaint is for a judgment and decree against defendants 1 to 8 jointly and severally for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 17-3-1992 alleged to have been executed by them in plaintiffs favour in respect of their plaint schedule property agreeing to sell the same for consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/-, they having received the total sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from plaintiff towards part sale consideration in the alternative for a decree jointly and severally against defendants for payment of Rs. 94,00,000/- including damages of Rs. 82,00,0007- by creating a charge on the suit property. Respondents 1 to 4 (defendants 1 to 4) filed their joint written statement without denying the material allegations in the plaint in particular, the suit agreement dated 17-3-1992. On the other hand, petitioners (defendants 5 to 8) filed their joint written statement in detail denying material plaint allegations and their liability under the suit agreement to execute the sale deed in plaintiffs favour in respect of the suit property and contending that the suit agreement is a forged and concocted document

(3.) during pendency of the suit plaintiff filed i.a. No. 20 under order 12, Rule 6, C.P.C. before the trial court supported by an affidavit of its concerned official praying that the trial court, may be pleased to pass a partial decree' for specific performance against defendants 1 to 4 directing them to execute the sale deed in respect of their 7/8th share in the suit schedule property after receiving their share of balance of sale consideration and in case they fail or neglect to execute the sale deed then to permit the plaintiff to deposit the amount in court and to get the sale deed executed, and dispose of the suit accordingly in the interest of justice. In answer to plaintiffs i.a. No. 20, defendants 1 to 4-who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, filed their memo dated 22-9-1995 in the court below admitting the plaintiffs case against them in the following terms :