VENKATANARAYANAPPA Vs. SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) DEFENDANT is the owner of the suit property bearing Sy. No. 576 (Old S. No. 319/2) measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at venkatapura, Kasaba hobli, Pavagada taluk, Tumkur District. Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said land from the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 2500/-on28. 4. 1987. It is his case that a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid as advance on the date of the agreement which the defendant received to discharge the loan due to one VSSN Venkatapura, a Society, when the said society has brought the property for sale. However, the sale agreement was reduced into writing on 29. 4. 87. A sum of Rs. 1,200/- was paid under the aforesaid agreement on 18. 8. 87 which is endorsed on the agreement in front of the witnesses. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 300/-was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. All the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property were delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the property raising crops. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. When the defendant did not comply with their demand he was constrained to issue notice on 6. 10. 90. However, the plaintiff received suit summons in O. S. No. 333/90 from the court where the defendant had filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff. It is his case that by virtue of injunction order granted, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property. In those circumstances, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O. S. No. 201191 for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and for possession.

(3.) DEFENDANT after sendee of notice entered appearance, filed written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of consideration. He admitted filing of the suit by him and he sought for dismissal of the suit. Defendant's suit O. S. No. 333/90 was clubbed together with the plaintiff's suit O. S. No. 201/91. Separate issues were framed in both the suits. However, a common trial was held. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The trial court decreed the suit of the defendant for permanent injunction reserving liberty to the plaintiff to take possession in pursuance of the decree passed in O. S. No. 201/91. In the plaintiff's suit the trial court held, suit agreement is established, payment of consideration as set out in the plaint under the agreement is also established, balance sale consideration payable is only Rs. 300/- and plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the defendant who avoided to execute the sale deed and therefore it held, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance. The trial court also noticed that the suit schedule property is a granted land to the defendant who belonged to scheduled caste. Therefore in view of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978, for short hereinafter referred to as the Act, permission of the Government is required before sale deed could be executed. Therefore the decree of specific performance was subject to such permission being granted by the Government. It was also made clear, if the defendant fails to apply and obtain such permission it is open to the plaintiff to get a Commissioner appointed through court and the Commissioner would seek permission from the government and after getting such permission sale deed is to be executed. The suit of the defendant for permanent injunction was also decreed. The plaintiff accepted the judgment and decree of the trial court in O. S. No. 333/90 and did not challenge the same. However, it is the defendant who preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 201/91.