S NARAYANAPPA Vs. SAMPANGI RAMAYYA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third Defendant is the Appellant. The first Respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5.7.1994 executed by Respondents 2 and 3 herein. That suit was dismissed and the first Respondent/Plaintiff filed appeal and that appeal was allowed and against the same, the second appeal is filed by the third Defendant.

(2.) The case of the first Respondent/Plaintiff was that the suit property belongs to Respondents 2 and 3 and on 5.7.1994, he entered into an agreement with Respondents 2 and 3 for the purchase of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/= and on that date itself, he paid Rs. 28,000/= and possession was handed over to him and it was agreed that the sale shall be completed within a period of one year and he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement of sale and whenever Respondents 2 and 3 were approached, they were evasive and he came to know that Respondents 2 and 3 were attempting to sell the property to the third parties and therefore, issued a notice dated 2.12.1994 to Respondents 2 and 3 calling upon them to execute he sale deed dated 6.12.1994 informing that he would be present in the Registrar's Office with the balance sale consideration and Respondents 2 and 3 did not turn up and he later came to know that Respondents 2 and 3 sold the property to the Appellant on 5.12.1994 and he sent a notice dated 19.5.1995 to Respondents 2 and 3 and the Appellant and thereafter filed the suit for specific performance.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement denying the agreement of sale in favour of the first Respondent and stated that they entered into an agreement of sale with the Appellant for the sale of the suit property on 26.8.1994 and also executed the sale deed in favour of the Appellant on 5.12.1994 and possession was handed over to the Appellant and the Appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the first Respondent was not put in possession of the property under the alleged agreement of sale dated 5.7.1994.