J SOMASHEKAR Vs. LT COL APPU RAMANAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's writ petition against the order dated 15.9.2017 made in O.S.No.5395/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore rejecting the notice to admit documents filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.5395/2011 for specific performance directing the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,52,50,000/- and to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and to deliver possession thereof, failing which, the Court may permit the plaintiff to deposit the entire amount upon the decree before the Court contending that defendant No.1, who is the owner of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint intending to offer to sell the schedule property to him and accordingly, the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 2.9.2008, and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub-registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid on the date of agreement as advance under the cheque and balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Clause 2 of the agreement contemplated that the transaction had to be completed within a period of three months, however, subject to the condition that the plaintiff would secure and produce documents referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (s) of the agreement.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that though the documents had not been secured on 9.9.2008, the defendants again approached the plaintiff seeking further advance on the ground that the same was required to meet their exigencies. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the entire balance sale consideration, subject to compliance of clause 2 of the sale agreement, at the request of the defendants, further sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by means of cheque and a separate receipt had also been executed by the defendants in this regard. It was further contended that, it was represented by the defendant that he intended to execute the General Power of Attorney in the name of his friend Ramarao after obtaining 'No Objection' from the daughter and that the sale consideration could be concluded through the power of attorney holder by paying balance sale consideration, etc., and inspite of notice, the defendant had not executed the sale agreement, etc. Therefore, he had filed the suit for the relief sought for.