K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is by the first defendant, in a suit filed by tie 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 26-5-1980, whereby, the 1st defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to purchase a property situated in bangalore. 1st defendant was already in possession of residential portion of the property; the front portion has two shops which were then tenanted by others. The consideration for sale was Rs. 90,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff at the time of the agreement (ex. D. 1 ). The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 80,000/- within six months from the date of the agreement i. e. , on or before 26-11-1980; the agreement stated that 1st defendant agreed to sign the sale deed after receiving this balance amount. The plaintiff had to bear the expenses of the sale deed. Plaintiff was already in possession of the house as a tenant and he had to take possession of the two shop portions from the tenants after the sale of the property and it was not for the 1st defendant to handover the possession of those shops to the plaintiff. The agreement, further, stated that if plaintiff failed to register the property as per the terms of the agreement 1st defendant could forfeit the advance amount of Rs. 10. 000/ -. If 1st defendant, after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- from the plaintiff "fails to get the property registered" in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff was entitled to get the property registered through court of law. On 25-11-1980, an endorsement was made, by the executants, that the agreement provided for the performance on 26-11-1980, but it was not possible to complete the sale deed and hence they have agreed to extend the period by two months; the sale agreement had to be completed by 25-1-1981. Again, the date was extended in view of an injunction order of the civil court issued in o. s. no. 10452 of 1980; the extended period was further extended by a subsequent endorsement. The last endorsement resulted in extending the date of completion till 24-10-1981. The agreement was executed and these endorsements were made at salem, where the 1st defendant has been residing.

( 2 ) THE plaint refers to the agreement and thereafter states that the first endorsement extending the time came to be made as desired by the first defendant "in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was and has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. " it also refers to the suit filed by the second defendant against the first defendant as per o. s. no. 10452 of 1980 wherein the second defendant obtained an order of temporary injunction against the sale, claiming that he was entitled to enforce the oral contract under which the first defendant agreed to sell the property to the second defendant. In view of this order of temporary injunction, the time to complete the agreement in question (ex. D. 1) had to be extended. The plaint further refers to the application filed by the first defendant in the suit o. s. no. 10452 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the other suit') seeking the vacating of the order of injunction. This la. Was rejected and consequently the first defendant filed an appeal before the High Court which was allowed resulting in the vacating of the temporary injunction on 16-2-1984. The plaint further asserts that immediately on 22-2-1984 first defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff informing of the said order of the High Court and calling upon the plaintiff to take from the first defendant the sale deed to which plaintiff replied by a telegram that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed and further wrote a letter as to when the first defendant would arrive at Bangalore from salem to enable the plaintiff to keep himself ready to complete the transaction. However, there was no response thereafter from the first defendant. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document