This captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the judgment and

3

decree passed in O.S.No.7570/2003 on the file of the

XI Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-08), Bengaluru.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are as

follows:

The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking

relief of specific performance of contract. The plaintiff

claimed that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit

schedule site bearing No.52 measuring 339+40/2 x 40.

It is further contended that defendant No.1 agreed to

sell the suit schedule site for sale consideration of

Rs.74,000/- and accordingly, defendant No.1 executed

an agreement to sell on 14.06.1990 as per Ex.P.1 and

has paid earnest money of Rs.5,000/- to defendant

No.1. The plaintiff claimed that balance amount of

Rs.69,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of

4

executing the sale deed. The plaintiff further pleaded

that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part

of contract and it is the defendant No.1 who has not

come forward to execute the sale deed by receiving

the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff has also

contended that defendant No.1 was required to obtain

permission under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling

and Regulation Act, 1976. The plaintiff has further

pleaded that after lapse of six months, defendant No.1

approached the plaintiff in the month of December,

1990 and demanded to pay the balance sale

consideration. The plaintiff claimed that he has paid

entire balance sale consideration of Rs.69,000/- on

13.12.1990. Defendant No.1, who is in receipt of

balance sale consideration, has sworn to an affidavit

dated 13.12.1990 as per Ex.P.2. The plaintiff claimed

that though defendant No.1 has received the entire

sale consideration, she failed to perform her part of

5

contract and execute the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to

issue a legal notice on 20.09.2000 as per Ex.P.4.

Since defendant No.1 has issued an evasive reply, the

plaintiff claims that he was compelled to file the

present suit for specific performance of contract.

4. On receipt of summons, defendant No.1

tendered appearance and contested the proceedings.

Defendant No.1 stoutly denied the entire averments

made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 specifically

disputed the readiness and willingness on the part of

the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 specifically pleaded at

para No.9 of the written statement that she was made

to wait with an assurance that plaintiff would pay

balance sale consideration. Defendant No.1 further

pleaded that plaintiff was never interested in getting

property registered in his name by paying balance

6

sale

consideration.

Defendant

No.1

specifically

contended that the sale transaction was required to be

completed within a period of three months and that

she had only received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as an

advance amount. She specifically disputed the alleged

payment of Rs.69,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff in

the plaint. It was further contended that since

plaintiff committed a breach, defendant No.1 forfeited

the advance sale consideration and terminated the

suit agreement and intimated the same to the

plaintiff. At para No.12 of the written statement,

defendant No.1 had also narrated the incident, which

occurred in the month of April, 2002. Defendant No.1

claimed that plaintiff along with an advocate by name

Mr.M.N.Nethra Murthy deceitfully prevailed upon the

defendant No.1 to part with a promissory note and

five

blank

cheques

towards

compensation

of

Rs.1,00,000/-. She also claimed that she has paid an

7

amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was sought to

be paid in five installments of Rs.5,000/- each. At

para No.13 of the written statement, defendant No.1

claimed that in view of receiving Rs.5,000/- as

advance amount, she was virtually compelled to pay a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages a