HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1988, delivered by Smt. Manjula Chellur, XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 3005 of 1983 (A. Lingappa Reddy v. N. Venkateshappa), decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed and directing the defendant appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of Sy. No. 71, measuring O. 10 guntas and 0. 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 74/18, after having received the balance consideration of Rs. 78,000/ -. It further directed if the sale deed is not executed as directed, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to deposit the balance consideration of Rs. 78,000/- in Court and get the sale deed registered in his name, though a Commissioner to be appointed by the Court. The Trial Court further directed the defendant and restrained him permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land that is Sy. No. 71 measuring O. 10 guntas and Sy. No. 74/1-B, measuring 25 guntas. The defendant-appellant has challenged the entire decree.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned suit No. 3005/83, for the decree for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property, as well as prayed for grant of decree directing the defendant-appellant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee or nominees, or in default by him for execution deed by the Court on his behalf conveying or transferring the suit schedule property in terms of the agreement of sale dated 14-2-83, after receiving the balance of the sale consideration. Plaintiff had also prayed the decree for injunction as mentioned earlier. The relief for specific performance of the contract was added by amendment of the plaint. The property in the schedule mentioned consists of an area of 10 guntas of Sy. No. 71 and another area of five and half guntas of aforesaid Sy. No. 71 and 0. 25 guntas of Sy. No. 74/1b, the boundaries of which have been specifically given in the schedule to the plaint and which land is situate in Kowdenahally, K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Plaintiff's case is that defendant had agreed, as per agreement dated 14-2-83, to sell the land, extent of which and the numbers of which have earlier been mentioned, in the body of this judgment, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/ -. The defendant according to the plaintiff's case, in terms of agreement dated 14-2-83, had received an advance of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, towards the sale consideration. Plaintiff's case is that under the agreement, plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of further advance towards the balance of consideration on or before 16-3-83 and on such payment being made, the defendant had agreed to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and to put the plaintiff in possession thereof, to enable the plaintiff to form a layout of sites. Plaintiff's case is that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant received that sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 17-6-83. Plaintiff's further case is towards the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 16-6-83, and the remaining balance was to be paid on or before 16-12-83. The plaintiff was given liberty to form the roads and lay-out of sites etc. , and plaintiff was also given liberty to sell such sites. Plaintiff's further case is that the defendant had delivered the possession as well as some of the documents of title and the remaining documents of title were still to be delivered besides the defendant had to comply with such other formalities regading the sale and registration of documents under law. Plaintiff has averred that as agreed plaintiff was always ready to pay to the def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document