RENUKA DEVI Vs. MARIYAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 12/1994 on the file of learned Munsiff, Holenarasipura, has come up in this appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing her suit for the reliefs of specific performance, permanent injunction and alternatively, for possession.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this second appeal are that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and their father, late Javaranaika, on 13.03.1992, wherein they agreed to sell the suit schedule property in her favour for a sale consideration of Rs. 22,800/-. In part performance of the said agreement, received advance amount of Rs. 4,000/- and put her in possession of the suit property. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. It is her grievance that though she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, during the subsistence of the said agreement, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 5 under the sale deed dated 25.11.1993, which according to her is null and void and not binding on her. Since defendant No. 5 tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property, she was constrained to file the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) In the said suit, on service of summons, defendant No. 5 entered appearance. However, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in spite of service of summons, did not chose to appear and they have been placed ex parte before the trial Court.