M KRISHNAPPA Vs. R KANIKARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs revision petition. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount with costs and interest. An on demand promissory note and consideration receipt dated 8-1-1987 agreeing to repay the sum with interest was also executed by the defendants. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that the on demand promissory note was not in Survey No. 15/1 of Cholanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for specific performance of the agreement of sale in question. In the plaint, it is alleged that there was an earlier agreement between the plaintiff and late Ramakka, whose legal representatives are the defendants on 10-3-1982 and that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property by her. That agreement could not be enforced as Ramakka died and after her death, the defendants entered into an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff on 30-9-1988 by receiving further advance of Rs. 50,000/-. The possession of the suit schedule property continued with the plaintiff which he obtained in pursuance to the agreement dated 10-3-1982 executed by Ramakka.

(2.) The defendants filed a detailed written statement. While they admitted the execution of the agreement in question, they disputed the correctness of the statement of the plaintiff with regard to delivery of possession of the property in question in his favour and the other allegations levelled against the petitioners were denied.

(3.) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint seeking for alternate relief of giving benefits arising out of the acquisition of the property in question in the event the acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit schedule property is completed. In the application for amendment, it was sought to be brought out that the suit schedule property was proposed for acquisition and the final declaration was issued in the year 1989 for acquiring the land in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority. It is further alleged that the acquisition proceedings are not completed and the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. It is alleged in the amendment application that a prayer has to be added to the effect that, in the event the land acquisition proceedings are completed by the Government, the plaintiff would be entitled for all the benefits arising out of the said acquisition. Accordingly, he prayed for amendment of the prayer by adding the prayer to the effect that in the event of the acquisition proceedings of the said property is completed and the scheme is implemented, the plaintiff is entitled for all the benefits arising out of the acquisition of the suit schedule property. This was sought to be added in the plaint as prayer (aa).