H. RANGAVITTALACHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal. The respondent to this appeal is the plaintiff.

( 2 ) PARTIES will be referred to with reference to the rank in the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for 'specific performance' of an agreement of sale dated 31-10-1975 by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour. He contended in the suit that the defendant is the owner of the land measuring 30 guntas in Survey No. 63/7 situated at Halanayakana Halli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. By an agreement dated 31-10-1975, he 'agreed to sell', the said land for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/-, after receiving the sale consideration the defendant parted with the land, and agreed to execute the "sale deed", as and when the ban for selling the land, under the 'karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act', 1966 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) was repealed. On 28-10-1993, after the Act was repealed plaintiff by a written notice called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. Since, he refused to do so, he filed the suit.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant. While admitting that he was the owner of the suit property, denied of having executed the "agreement of sale" and parting with the possession. He contended that the deed of "agreement of sale" referred to by plaintiff was a spurious and concocted document; prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 5 ) THE trial Judge framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings :-"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had executed an agreement to sell on 31-10-1975 agreeing to sell the extent of land fallen to his share under partition and delivered the possession and undertook to execute the regular sale deed as soon as the ban on registering the fragmented land is lifted as stated in para 2 of the plaint?2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement?3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 31-10-1975 to the knowledge of the defendant continuously without interruption and perfected his title and interest over the property by means of adverse possession as stated in para 3 of the plant?4. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has forged the document and also tried to tamper with the revenue records as stated in para 8 of the written statement?5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?6. What order or/decree?"

( 6 ) SINCE, the defendant disputed the execution of the "agreement of sale", the plaintiff during trial examined one H. T. Krishna Reddy, attestor, to prove the "agreement of sale" besides examining himself. Similarly, the defendant also lead evidence by examining himself and others in support of his plea.

( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge has held, that the evidence of the parties discloses that the defendant did execute the "agreement of sale" and parted with possession. Repelling one of the contentions of the defendant that the very execution of agreement was improbable since "the stamp papers over which the agreement was executed shows that it was issued at Mangalore on 31-10-75 and the agreement being executed at Bangalore on the same date i. e. 31-10-1975", the learned trial Judge has held that during the relevant time there was scarcity of stamp papers at Bangalore and it was not uncommon that the stamp papers issued at Mangalore being sold at Bangalore and therefore no significance can be attached to such a contention. He decreed the suit.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree the defendant appealed. The learned Appellate Judge, after re-appraising the evidence, has concurred with the findings of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. These two judgments and decrees are under challenge.

( 9 ) HEARD Sri M. V. Vedachala, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri C. B. Srinivasan, the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document