The court established that an agreement to sell is not a conveyance and is not prohibited under the Fragmentation Act, allowing for specific performance once the property restrictions are lifted.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03^rd March, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.107 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31^st August, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.415 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed against the defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and have entered into a Sale Agreement with the plaintiff on 15^th July, 1985, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,500/-. The defendants have received the entire sale consideration amount and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that, since there was a bar for sale of land under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Fragmentation Act'), defendants have postponed the execution of the registered Sale Deed with a condition to execute the registered Sale Deed only after the amendment made to the Fragmentation Act. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff made a request for execution of the registered Sale Deed, however, the same was not accepted by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff has field instant suit seeking relief of specific performance of the Sale Agreement dated 15^th July, 1985.

4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. The specific contention of the defendants in the written statement is that the claim made by the plaintiff is based on a concocted agreement and that apart, the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. It is also stated that the defendants have filed suit in Original Suit No.368 of 1997 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of injunction against the plaintiff and accordingly, defendants are in possession of suit schedule property. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.415 of 1997.

5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration.

6. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked 4 documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendants examined 2 witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and marked 3 documents as Exhibits D1 to D3.

7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 31^st August, 2012, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property as per the terms of the Sale Agreement dated 15^th July, 1985. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred Regular Appeal No.107 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03^rd March, 2015, allowed the appeal and as such, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 31^st August, 2012 passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by t