T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) -THE L. Rs of defendant-No. 1 Smt. Bisabi are the appellants before this Court. The suit for a direction to be given to the defendants to depose before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad for permission in respect of transfer of. leasehold rights and to execute deed of sale or leasehold rights by receiving Rs. 1500/- before the Sub-Registrar; in default, appoint a commissioner to take permission of the Deputy commissioner and execute a sale deed of leasehold rights on behalf of the respondents, was dismissed by the trial Court, but however decreed by the first Appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff. Now the L. Rs. of the first defendant are before this Court in this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is a permanent leaseholder of the property bearing R. S. No. 65, measuring 3 guntas out of 1 acre. 11 guntas. The suit property is a vacant land. The defendant is a permanent lease holder from 5. 9. 1959, who has purchased the lease hold right from one nabi Naik and his brother. The defendant first gave the suit property to the plaintiff on rental basis of Rs. 15/- per month and made an agreement of sale of the leasehold rights. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement on 17. 7. 1977 on condition that the defendant is to transfer the leasehold rights to the plaintiff for Rs. 2500/1 He received Rs. 500/- and the balance of Rs. 2000/- has to be paid. It appears, -the defendant first agreed to come and depose before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad when called for: The plaintiff requested the defendant several times to come and depose before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and to execute the deed, but he could not care for the same. When the suit notice was refused to be received by the defendants,. the present suit is filed for the relief afore-mentioned.

( 3 ) THE defendants denied the execution of the sale deed on 17. 7. 197. 6. According to her the plaintiff had created bogus document which is not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit original defendant Bisabi died and her L. R. Smt. Bibijaharbi wife of mohammedsab was brought on record. During the pendency of the appeal the L. R. of the original defendant Bibijaharbi also died on 27. 3. 1988. Therefore, the L. R. Nos. l (a) to l (e) were brought on record. . The first appellate court allowed the appeal directing the l. Rs of the deceased defendant to appear before the Deputy Commissioner for. permission and in respect of transfer of lease-hold rights and to execute the sale deed of leasehold rights of the suit property after receiving rs. 1500/- before the Sub-Registrar. Now respondents l (b) to l (f) are before this Court in this second appeal. Though it is not made clear, respondent No. l (a) must have been died as he was already aged about 75 years in 1982.

( 4 ) IN any case pleading is important and it should be specific, clear, categoric and shall hot afford any room for doubt. If the pleading is not clear, a decision based on such pleading would tend to lead. to ambiguous decisions. 'it is true that the substance of the pleading is to be considered and not merely jugglery of wordings. May be in the form of the pleadings, a plaintiff may not be able to express, in the language used by him what he wants, but the prayer should be specific so that when the prayer is granted, a decree, to be drawn as per such prayer, should be unambiguous, clearly acceptable and make the relief reach the decree holder. Otherwise, the entire exercise of conducting a case upto the level of highest court would become a farce. Real meaning of the rights between the parties should be spelt and understood in a proper perspective.

( 5 ) PRAYER in the plaint is certainly ambiguous. The prayer is that "the defendant be directed to depose before the Deputy Commissioner, dharwair for permission in respect of transfer of lease-hold rights". How a direction can be given and how the plaintiff would be entitled to suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document