ANAND BYRAREDDY
Parvathamma – Appellant
Versus
Uma – Respondent
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
2. The present appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had executed an agreement of sale, dated 1-7-1988 in respect of the suit properties and had received a sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and had agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties upon the repeal of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fragmentation Act’ for brevity). The Act was repealed by Karnataka Act No. 4 of 1991 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 5-2-1991. Inspite of such repeal, the defendants having failed to execute and register the sale deed as agreed on repeated demands, the plaintiff had issued a notice dated 9-10-1995, which was returned unserved and thereafter, the suit was filed. The defendants contested the suit denying the very execution of the agreement of sale and the receipt of sale consideration while also contending that in any event, the suit was
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.