V CHANNAPPA Vs. CHANNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the un-successful plaintiff in O.S. No. 115/ 1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Gudibanda, Kolar District. Respondents-1 to 3 were Defendants-1 to 3 in the trial Court. The sole plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. 18 of 1997 on the file of the then Munsiff of Chikkaballapur, which was later transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gudibande and re-numbered as O.S. No.115/ 1999 for specific performance of the contract in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 62/11 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated in Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk.

(2.) The 1st defendant is the mother and Defendants- 2 and 3 are her sons. One Byrappa was the husband of the 1st defendant and father of Defendants - 2 and 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, the 1 st defendant for herself and on behalf of Defendants - 2 and 3 during their minority as their natural guardian and also as the manager of the joint family, agreed to sell suit schedule properties for a sum of Rs.4,100/- for the legal necessities of the family and for discharging the debts of the family and in that behalf an agreement dated 18/2/1982 came into existence and on the date of the agreement the 1 st defendant received the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,100.00 and placed the plaintiff in possession of the property agreed to be sold to hold the same in part performance of the agreement of sale. He further alleged that the schedule land was granted to Byrappa under the provisions of the Karantaka Land Reforms Act by the Land Tribunal, Chikkaballapur, and in view of the provisions for non-alienation of the land for a period of 15 years from 2/1/1982, the plaintiff could not obtain the registered document immediately and therefore, the 1st defendant agreed that the regular registered sale deed would be executed by her along with her sons after the expiry of the period of 15 years. He further alleged that Defendants - 2 and 3 after attaining majority ratified the sale effected by the 1st defendant during their minority and they also agreed that they would join the execution of the sale deed with the 1st defendant. It was his further contention that the sale is binding upon Defendants - 2 and 3 as the same was effected for their legal necessities and also for discharging the debts of the family incurred by deceased Byrappa and the 1st defendant after his death. He further alleged in the plaint that when the period of prohibition for alienation came to an end, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed but the defendants failed to comply with the demand committed breach of the terms of the agreement and they also started attempting to alienate the schedule property to others for an higher price, taking advantage of the escalation in the price of the agricultural lands. With these allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 18.02.1982 by directing Defendants - 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed conveying the schedule property in his favour and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) Upon service of the suit summons, Defendants-1 to 3 appeal in the trial Court and contested the suit. In their joint written statement, they denied the whole case of the plaintiff. They contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the heirs of deceased Byrappa are not impleaded as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. They contended that the 1st defendant has never executed any agreement muchless agreement dated 18.02.1982 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties for a sum of Rs.4,100/- nor she delivered the possession of the property to the plaintiff on the date of the alleged agreement to hold the same in part performance of the agreement of sale. They further contended that prior to and subsequent to the grant of occupancy right, Byrappa and his family members were and have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. They further denied the case of the plaintiff that the property was agreed to be sold for discharging the family debts. According to the defendants, the alleged agreement is concocted and fabricated document. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.