SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Kar) 170

S.B.MAJAGE
H. K. PUTTATHAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
K. BHARATHI – Respondent


Advocates:
ASHOK HARANAHAFLI

S. B. MAJAGE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant, who was plaintiff in O. S. No. 12 of 1987 on the file of court of Munsiff at Holenarasipura, has come up before this Court in second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed in that suit and also in R. A. No. 112 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Holenarasipura, by which the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be affirmed.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, parties will be referred here after as plaintiff and defendant i. e. , as shown in the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts, which give rise to the present appeal, are: (A) The plaintiff, being the owner in possession of suit land in Sy. No. 167 measuring 1 acre situated at Thattiekere Village, entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants on 28-5-1980 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as part consideration amount and handed over its possession to them with an agreement that after balance payment of Rs. 3,000/-, sale deed shall take place. However, unfortunately, that date has not yet come so far. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were at fault and commit














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top