When successive agreements for sale of immoveable property contain identical boundaries and the plaintiff admits possession of only one single plot derived therefrom, the second agreement is a modification of the first, and once a sale deed is executed for that land, the contract stands discharged and fully satisfied.

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI IN R.A. NO.17/2001 AND FURTHER THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.03.2001 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) NIPANI IN O.S.NO.342/1994 MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED BY ALLOWING THIS RSA WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 4, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009 passed in R.A. No.17/2001 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’, for short), by revering the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2001 passed in O.S.No.342/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nipani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short).

2. The parties would be referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity,

3. Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 26.04.1986, seeking a direction to defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute regular registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule ‘A’ property carved out of Survey No.18/4, situated at Nipani, measuring East-West 60 feet and North-South 30 feet, with the following boundaries:

Towards East – P. B. Road;

Towards West – Remaining plots of defendants;

Towards South – The plot of plaintiff

Towards North – The plot in possession of Sri. Balu Krishna Raut;

It is further prayed that, in case no decree for specific performance could be passed for any reason, alternatively defendants be ordered to refund Rs.7,560/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit agreement till realization and to pay damages of Rs.7,560/- to the plaintiff; for court costs and for such other reliefs.

4. The case of plaintiff before Trial Court in nutshell is that defendants No.1 to 3 have executed agreement of sale dated 26.04.1986 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to sell suit schedule property for a consideration amount of ₹15,120/- by receiving advance amount of ₹7,560/- and as part performance of the contract, they have put plaintiff in possession of suit schedule property on the date of agreement. They agreed to execute registered sale deed after conversion of Re-survey No.18/4 for non-agricultural purpose (NA). Defendants should have given notice to plaintiff after conversion, but they did not do so. In spite of defendants got converted Re-survey No.18/4 about two years prior to filing of the suit, they have not issued any notice to plaintiff as agreed and plaintiff requested defendants No.1 to 3 several times to execute registered sale deed after he coming to know about conversion. But they have kept mum. Hence, plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 22.12.1989 calling upon defendants No.1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendants have not complied with the said notice. The plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. After service of notice, defendant No.1 filed his written statement, wherein he contended that the suit is false, frivolous, misconceived in law and on facts. The description of suit property is not proper. Defendants No.1 to 3 contended that they were the owners of Sy.No.18/4 situated at Nipan