K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the XIX Additional city Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O. S. No. 1409 of 1998. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant, the first respondent is the plaintiff in the Trial Court, and the second and third respondents are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the appeal are stated thus. The second respondent had executed a conditional sale in favour of the appellant on 20-6-1984 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in respect of the suit property. Under the said agreement, it was stipulated that within a period of three to five years from the date of the said deed, if the amount received under the deed is repaid to the first respondent, the appellant undertook to reconvey the property. Subsequent to the said agreement, the second respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the first respondent on 19-12-1984 wherein the conditional sale deed executed in respect of appellant is also mentioned and the other transactions entered into by the second respondent with others, not connected with the suit property are also mentioned.

( 3 ) THE suit transactions in the agreement is described as conditional sale amounting to a mortgage and all the rights and liabilities of the second respondent in respect of the suit property is conveyed in favour of the first respondent and the sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- was agreed. An advance of Rs. 57,881/- was received under the said document, the balance of Rs. 1,42,119/- was agreed to be paid within two months and on such payment, it was agreed that the second respondent shall pay the liabilities whatever incurred under the conditional sale deed executed in favour of the appellant and get the liability discharged and undertook to execute a registered sale deed in favour of first respondent along with the appellant.

( 4 ) THE first respondent filed the suit alleging that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement of sale and the second respondent herein has breached the terms of contract. It is also stated that a sum pf Rs. 7,250/- has been paid towards the costs of agreement on 5-1-1985 and that the second respondent herein has breached the terms of agreement and not willing to perform his part of the contract. Therefore he filed the suit seeking specific performance of contract under the agreement of sale entered into by the second respondent herein with the first respondent. The appellant is also impleaded as the third defendant in the suit as she holds the ostensible title in respect of the suit schedule property.

( 5 ) IT appears from the pleadings on record that the third respondent also executed an agreement of sale and that under the agreement of sale executed, Item 1 of the suit property was also agreed to be conveyed in favour of the first respondent by defendants 2 and 3. In respect of both the properties, the suit has been filed. Defendants 1 and 2 although appeared and filed written statement, they did not participate in further proceedings. Hence the suit is decree against them also. However, there is no appeal preferred by them against the decree. The appellant alone has contested the suit effectively and has come up in appeal.

( 6 ) ON the controversial facts in issue, the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Among them, the relevant issues pertain to the proof of agreement of sale executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of respondent 1, the readiness and willingness of respondent 1 to perform his part of contract. An issue is also framed with reference to the pleadings of the appellant that the agreement between 1st and 2nd respondents is void and that the second respondent had no right to execute agreement of sale in favour of the first respondent. Besides that, the plea of limitation is also taken.

( 7 ) THE Trial Court, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced, upheld the contention of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document