THIMMAPPA BASAPPA KURAHATTI Vs. SOMAPPA VENKAPPA NAGNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 91 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Gadag, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Gagag dated 20-6-1986 made in R.A. No. 11 of 1983 allowing the said appeal and setting aside out-right the judgment and decree made by the learned Munsiff in his favour in the aforesaid suit O.S. 91 of 1981 and further making a remit of the entire case back to the learned Munsiff for a fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence if any.

(2.) It has to be mentioned, the plaintiff had sued the defendant in O.S. 91 of 1981 calling upon him to convey back to him a piece of property that had been alienated in favour of the defendant under a sale deed dated 7-7-1978 for consideration. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the transaction it was understood and infact there was an agreement that subsequently the properties should be reconveyed to him subject to the stipulations arrived at in regard to price etc. He complained that the defendant having accepted the aforesaid arrangement to reconvey the properties subsequently had now receded from his undertaking and was refusing to comply with the request to reconvey the property and therefore sought a decree commending the defendant to specifically perform the solemn agreement between the parties as aforesaid.

(3.) The defendant upon entering appearance filed a written statement in which he denied any agreement or understanding between the parties for reconveying of properties subsequent to the sale and further pleaded the plaintiff who was harried very much by his creditors had sought his assistance in lightening his burden and, therefore, it is the transaction referred to supra had been enter his to help sorting out the financial commitments of the plaintiff and had finally shown liquidated completely. He denied that he was under any obligation to re-convey the property and asserted that the transaction between them was an out and out sale that admitted of no different complexion. In that view of the matter, he sought for a dismissal of the suit. On the aforesaid stand, he sought for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.