HENJARAPPA Vs. BASAMMA W/O K SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants in OS.No.160/2002. The said suit is for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.11.1989, which is at Ex.P1 in the trial court, wherein the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule land, namely land bearing Sy.No.2/1 of Ramanahally village, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk, measuring to an extent of 3 acres. Admittedly, the sale consideration under said agreement of sale is Rs.3,000/-, out of said amount on the date of agreement a sum of Rs.2,500/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendants with an understanding that the defendants would execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration.

(2.) It is stated by the plaintiff that subsequently the balance sale consideration is also received by defendants on 15.12.1989 and in that behalf they have executed stamped receipt vide Ex.P2. Thereafter, they did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed, which has necessitated issuance of legal notice on 12.6.2002 which is at Ex.P3. Though said legal notice is duly served on defendants, they did not choose to give any reply resulting in the suit for specific performance being filed on 23.7.2002.

(3.) The said suit was contested and thereafter, it came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 17.8.2005, which was subject matter of challenge in RA.No.303/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Sira, at the instance of defendants, which came to be dismissed on merits by judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008. Though the appeal before the lower appellate court is dismissed in the month of February 2008, this second appeal was not filed till February, 2010. Subsequently, though this second appeal was filed in the month of March 2010, the same was with several office objections including non filing of application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In fact, after filing of the second appeal, the same was not pursued diligently. Hence, this second appeal was dismissed on 6.4.2011 for non compliance of office objections, which was later restored on 6.3.2017 nearly after six years. The reason for keeping quite in not seeking restoration is not property explained, in spite of that this Court has allowed the application and restored the appeal on 6.3.2017.