K THIMMARAJU Vs. NAGARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by plaintiff against the order dated 12.07.2017 made in O.S.No. 18/2012 dismissing I.A.No.9 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and the order dated 09.09.2016 rejecting I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The present petitioner who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement of sale dated 23.01.2012 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff, to declare the agreement of sale dated 18.02012 entered into between defendant Nos.1 and 5 as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 to 4, contending that defendants Nos.1 to 4 are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.36/3 measuring 13 guntas including 1 gunta kharab situated at Mudugiripalya village, Gottigere Dhakle, Huttaridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, morefully described in the schedule to the plaint. Defendants 1 to 4 entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 23.01.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15,60,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of cash from the plaintiff as advance and delivered possession in favour of the plaintiff as part performance of the agreement. Now, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants Nos.1 to 4 also executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.5 on 18.02.2012, which is not binding on the plaintiff. In spite of repeated representation made, the defendants Nos.1 to 4 have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 002012 calling upon the defendants No.1 to 4 to execute the sale deed within 15 days and requested the defendant No.5 to withdraw the registered agreement of sale in his favour as defendant Nos.1 to 4 have entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff. But the defendants gave evasive reply. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for the relief sought for.