SUBRAMANI Vs. ZAHEERUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unsuccessful plaintiff is before Court invoking Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the judgment and decree dated 25. 9. 2000 in O. S. No. 2012/85 of the 11th additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, partly decreeing the suit, while rejecting the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and restraining the defendants by way of a permanent injunction from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property until dispossessed, in accordance with law.

(2.) FACTS in brief are:

(3.) THE purchaser instituted the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, arraigning as defendants Nos. 1 to 4, the vendors, who, when served with notice of the Suit, having remained absent and unrepresented, were placed ex parte. The Interlocutory application filed by the 5th respondent to be impleaded as a necessary and proper party defendant, claiming to have purchased the suit schedule property under a sale deed dated 30. 5. 1985 Ex. D2 executed by defendants 1 to 4, when allowed was impleaded as party defendant No. 5 and resisted the Suit by filing written statement dated 13. 12. 1989 inter alia admitting that defendants 1 to 4 were the owners of the suit schedule property, while denying the factum of plaintiff being in possession of the suit property and that the sale of the suit property in his favour, by the deed of conveyance ex. D2 was preceded by permission from the Competent Authority under the ULCR Act, by letter dated 25. 5. 1985 and that the reliefs in the suit filed on 26. 6. 1985 were rendered infructuous. In addition a plea was advanced that the plaintiffs default, disentitled specific performance of the agreement of sale.