SHOBHA SADANAND RAMANAKATTI Vs. VASANTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representative of the plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for specific performance along with declaration that a sale subsequent to the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff is not. Binding, was decreed by the trial court. On appeal therefrom, the first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. On the death of the plaintiff pendente lite, the legal representative of the plaintiff has been brought on record and the l. r. is now before this court questioning the judgment of the first appellate court.

(2.) THE brief facts that gave rise to the second appeal are that the suit properties belong to the 1st defendant. He has leased out the northern front portion and upper storey of the second part of the suit house No. 1990 to one Sri bandu ganesh sripannavar. The plaintiff is in possession of the remaining southern two parts and ground floor of the second part as tenant. He is also in possession and wahiwat of water tap, latrine and open site and the well in cts No. 2629. The 1st defendant agreed to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and executed the agreement deed dated 15-9-1965. The 1st defendant received Rs. 1,000/- from the plaintiff by way of earnest money. The period for execution of registered sale deed was two years from the date of execution of the agreement after receiving the remaining consideration amount. The plaintiff has spent a large amount for carrying out repairs to the house. The fact that the 1st defendant has executed the suit agreement and the plaintiff has carried out repairs is known to all neighbours. Sri bandu ganesh sripannavar and his family members who are co-tenants also know these facts. The 1st defendant informed the plaintiff by letter dated 3-8-1967 that he has sold the suit property to the defendant 2 and that the plaintiff should pay rent to her. But on enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant in collusion with the second defendant has created a bogus and false sale deed. The second defendant is the wife of co-tenant bandopanth ganesh sripannavar. The sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the second defendant is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff by registered notice dated 25-9-1967 called upon the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed. in spite of it, the 1st defendant has not executed the sale deed. the plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

(3.) THE case of the 1st defendant is that he is the owner of the suit property. He had not executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 15-9-1965 agreeing to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. This agreement produced in court by the plaintiff is a false document. He had not received Rs. 1,000/ -. He has sold the suit properties to the second defendant under registered sale deed dated 31-7-1967.