1.

Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. Present

appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

24.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.5532/2002 by the V

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

3

2.

Parties

are

referred

to

as

plaintiff

and

defendants for the sake of convenience as per their

original ranking before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

First defendant is the absolute owner of the property

bearing site No.47 (old No.67) and now assigned with

No.47/7, situated at 3^rd Cross, Nizamuddin Mohalla,

Mysore Road, Bangalore, comprising of a shop measuring

20 ft X 12 ft and a residential house with electricity and

water connection measuring 30X20 feet (hereinafter

referred to as 'suit property'). Father of the plaintiff Mr.

Shaikh Mahaboob was the tenant in respect of the said

shop premises, measuring 12X20ft and also the residential

house. Mother of first defendant Smt. Rameeza Khanum

promised to sell the shop to the father of the plaintiff and

at her request father of the plaintiff vacated the residential

house. Suit property was agreed to be sold for a sum of

Rs.2,65,000/- under agreement of sale dated 20.05.1988.

4

On the date of agreement sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid as

earnest money. Later on, mother of the first defendant

died on 22.07.1988 and thereafter, there was a confusion

amongst the children born to the mother of the first

defendant and second husband. The father of the plaintiff

however continued to pay the rent of the shop to the first

defendant. Thereafter, there was a settlement in respect of

the confusion and the first defendant became the absolute

owner of the suit property and he got the revenue entries

mutated in his name and he confirmed to sell the property to

the father of the plaintiff for total sale consideration amount

of Rs.2.95,000/- and received further earnest money in a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under a subsequent agreement dated

18.11.1999.

4.

It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff that

the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part

of the contract, but the defendants did not respond to the

request made by the plaintiff. It is also contended that first

defendant postponed the execution of the sale deed on one

5

pretext or the other and plaintiff came to know in the fourth

week of July 2002 that the first defendant sold the suit

property to the second defendant on 13.5.2002. It is further

contended that second defendant with full knowledge of the

agreement of sale between the plaintiff and first defendant,

purchased the suit property only to defeat the claim of the

plaintiff and thus filed the suit and sought for suitable orders.

5.

On receipt of suit summons, both the defendants

appeared and filed separate written statements.

6.

The first defendant denied that the claim made

by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and suit is not maintainable

in law. However, he admitted that he is the owner of the

schedule property and the father of the plaintiff was a tenant

of the first defendant. He denied the agreement of sale dated

20.5.1988 said to have been executed by Smt. Rameeza

Khanum. He took a specific contention that the sale

agreement is a forged document. He also denied the

payment of earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. He denied the

letter dated 21.1.2001 relied on by the plaintiff said to have

6

been written by the first defendant and he specifically

contended that the said letter is a concocted document.

However, he admitted sale made in favour of second

defendant on 13.5.2002.

7.

Second defendant in his written statement

contended that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit

property for a valuable consideration and denied the

allegation that there is a collusion between him and the first

defendant. He also contended that the father of the plaintiff

was aware of the sale transaction made by first defendant

with him and he also informed about the sale to the father of

the plaintiff. He further contended that when the father of