K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-8-78 of the civil judge, Hassan, in R. A. No. 3 of 1977, affirming the judgment and decree dated 10-11-1976 of the Munsiff, channarayapatna, in O. S. No. 206 of 1971.

( 2 ) PRIOR to 29-6-60 the plaintiff was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 70/2a of Kaggere village, Nuggehally hobli. Channarapatna Taluk, measuring 2 acres 15 guntas out of which an extent of 0-01 gunta was a 'kharab' land. On 29-6-60 the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant purporting to convey the said land to the latter for a consideration of Rs. 200 (Exhibit-P1 ). On the same day, the defendant also executed an agreement to reconvey the said land (Exhibit-P2) to the plaintiff within 18 months from that day. On 18-7-63, the defendant reconveyed an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas including the kharab out of the aforesaid land to one Sri K. Visweswaraiah, a son of the plaintiff (Exhibit-P3)

( 3 ) THE plaintiff alleged that under another agreement of the same date (Exhibit-P2 (d) the defendant agreed to reconvey the remaining extent of 1 acre also to him on his paying the balance of the loan amount taken by him on 29-6-60 under the purported registered sale deed Exhibit-Pi with interest thereon. On these and other allegations, the plaintiff instituted o. S. No. 206 of 1971 on 6-10-71 in the court of the Munsiff, Chanarayapatna for specific performance of the agreement dated 10-7-63 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his alleged possession of the aforesaid 1 acre of land.

( 4 ) IN resisting the plaintiff's suit, the defendant denied the execution of the alleged agreement dated 10-7-63 (Exhibit-P2d)". The defendant alleged that he had sold 1 acre 15 guntas of land to Sri Viseswaraiah on humanitarian considerations at the instance of the elders of the village though the transaction was an out and out sale and was not a loan transaction and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance of the alleged agreement. He also asserted that he was in possession of the property and that the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled for a permanent injunction. Lastly he urged that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was barred by time.

( 5 ) ON the above pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed the following four issues: (1) Whether the plain/tiff proves that the defendant has executed an agreement agreeing to reconyey the suit schedule property on 10-7-63 ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction sought for? (3) Whether the defendant proves that he has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the sale in his favour was an out and out sale? (4) To what relief are the parties entitled?

( 6 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the learned Munsiff did not frame an issue on the plea of the defendant that the suit was barred by time, though he was required to frame an issue in that behalf.

( 7 ) ON a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned munsiff answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No. 3 in the negative. In the course of his judgment, the learned Munsiff also found that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time. On the above conclusions the learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit, which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the learned Civil Judge in r. A. No. 3 of 1970.

( 8 ) ON 8-12-78 Jagannatha Shetty, j. admitted this appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "whether on facts and circumstances of the case, time is the essence of contract on which the plaintiff has relied upon?"

( 9 ) AT the hearing of the appeal, i found that in addition to the above substantial question of law, it was necessary to frame two more substantial questions of law. Accordingly, i framed and heard the parties on all of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document