PUJARI NARASAPPA AND Vs. SHAIK HAZRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs Poojari Narasappa and Kallurappa against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Raichur in O. S. No. 12/1 of 1953. The facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) Plaintiffs' suit is for specific performance of a contract to sell four lands survey Nos. 769, 770, 771 and 773 in Kallur Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur: District. The plaintiffs-appellants alleged that the first defendant--first respondent, Shaik Hazarath agreed to sell these lands to them as per agreement dated 24th Azur 1359 F corresponding to 24th October 1949 for a consideration of Rs. 8, 000/- (I.G) and he executed the agreement marked as Exhibit I in the case in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further plaintiffs the first defendant--first respondent has sold the lands to defendants 2 and 3 Dodda Mahadeva and Sanna Mahadeva minors by guardian Master Siddappa for a sum of Rs. 12, 000/- as per the sale deed marked as Exhibit A. 1 in the case dated 1-5-1950. Therefore the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree against the defendants for specific performance of the contract dated 24-10-1949 and they have also prayed that the first defendant should execute a proper sale deed in respect of the said lands and get it registered after receiving the consideration therefor.

(3.) Defendant 1 (Respondent 1) has denied the execution of the agreement Exhibit I. He had also alleged that as he is an agriculturist, therefore a member of protected class, permission to sell the lands from the Collector was needed. He therefore, filed an application for obtaining permission to sell the lands in favour of defendants 2 and 3. During the course of those proceedings, the plaintiffs appellants intervened and volunteered to pay a sum of Rs. 12, 000/- (I.G.) and prayed that the lands may be sold in their favour instead of in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and on this application the Collector granted several adjournments to the plaintiffs to pay the money which they promised to do. As they failed to do so, he granted permission to defendant to sell the lands in favour of defendants 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3) for a sum of Rs. 12, 000/-. Hence the first defendant contends that the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence is liable to be dismissed.