N BASAVARAJ Vs. SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 7197/2001 dated 22. 9. 2004 passed by the 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The subject matter of the suit was site Nos. 7 and 8 situated at B. Narayanappa @ Byatarayanapura village, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property' ). The suit filed by the plaintiff was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming under or through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Court below has dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) THE plaintiff contends that originally Smt. M. V. Rajamma was the owner of the suit schedule property. Rajamma sold the suit schedule property along with certain other building sites to C. T. Basappa under a registered sale deed dated 6. 10. 1971. C. T. Basappa died leaving behind him his son Sridhar and daughter Smt. Uma (defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who have succeeded to the said property. The defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 70,000/-under an agreement dated 4. 7. 1986. The defendants received a sum of rs. 30,000/- on 4. 7. 1986 and delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance of Rs. 40,000/-has to be paid within three months and the defendant have to execute the sale deed conveying the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the balance of Rs. 40,000/- on 30. 8. 1986. Thus, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- was paid to the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 4. 7. 1986. without any objection from anybody. Since there was ban on sale of revenue lands during the relevant point of time, the parties agreed for execution and registration of the sale deed on a future date. The defendants agreed for the plaintiff enjoying the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff has paid entire sale consideration and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But, the defendants have been postponing to further complete the transaction on one pretext or the other. It is further contended that the plaintiff permitted formation of a road on a portion of the suit schedule property measuring about 15 ft. x 50 ft. for an approach road to the properties situated on its southern side owned by certain other persons. Thus, the size of the suit schedule property was reduced due to the formation of the said road. It is further contended that a few days back, the defendants tried to disturb his possession of the suit schedule property. With the intervention of the neighbours, the plaintiff was able to send them away from the suit schedule property. The defendants are putting forward their untenable claim and are trying to trespass into the suit schedule property. Therefore, he has filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) THE defendants have entered appearance and filed their written statements separately. It is contended that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. It is stated that in the suit, the plaintiff has sought for permanent injunction on the basis of his alleged possession under an agreement to sell dated 4. 7. 1986. He has not sought for specific performance of the said agreement to sell. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff cannot enforce the agreement at this belated stage. In order to cover up his lapses, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after a long lapse of 15 years. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has executed an agreement dated 20. 11. 1998 agreeing to sell 15ft. x 50ft. out of the suit schedule property to subramani and A. S. Gopal for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The defendants have denied that plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that M. V. Rajamma was the owner of the suit schedule property. C. T. Basappa purchased six sites in the said layout from M. V. Rajamma. The relationship between C. T. Basappa and the plaintiff was very cordial. The defendants were brought up at Chennai since their childhood at the residence of M. V. Rajamma. As the plaintiff, C. T. Basappa and M. V. Rajamma were close relatives, the plaintiff was successful in persuading M. V. Rajamma to lend a sum of rs. 15,00,000/- and the plaintiff was paying interest by way of demand drafts regularly. The defendants have denied the execution of an agreement dated 4. 7. 1986, and the receipt of Rs. 30,000/ -. They have also denied that there was a ban on registration of sale deeds during the relevant point of time. It is contended that the agreement is a fabricated one and that no consideration is passed on to them under the said agreement. It is further contended that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they had made an application to the mahadevapura notified area committee for regularization of unauthorised construction thereon. They have sought for dismissal of the suit.