BASAPPA Vs. BASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, who is the plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S.No.399 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur, for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction on averments such as that the suit property belongs to the respondent/defendant and he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.43,375/-; that after receiving a sum of Rs.36,325/- as advance, the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 10.7.1995, as per which, the plaintiff has to pay the balance of Rs.7,050/- within a period of three months, on receipt of which, the defendant has to execute the sale deed; that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; that on coming to know that the defendant decided to sell the property to her sister Krishnamma, the plaintiff sent a notice on 22.7.1995; that on receipt of the said notice, the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations. On such averments, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief extracted supra.

(2.) The defendant filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable; that she is the co-owner of the property; that the allegation that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property is not correct; that both the defendant and her sister Krishnamma are entitled to the suit property; that the properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the defendant and her sister; that there is no agreement of sale entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff on 10.7.1995; that the alleged agreement of sale is a forged one; that there is no necessity on her part to sell the property and that her sister is not a party to the agreement and that patta stands in the name of the defendant and her sister. On such pleadings, the defendant has prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

(3.) Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, besides examining herself as D.W.1, she would also mark the settlement dated dated 13.2.1993 as Ex.D.1. The trial Court, on the pleadings of parties, would frame the following issues for consideration of all questions involved in the suit:-