: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.5423/2013

BETWEEN:

1 . SAFIA D/O. ABDULSUBHAN SHAIK

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. NIPPANI, TQ: CHIKODI,

DIST: BELGAUM 590 001

2 . MISS. JULEKHA D/O. ABDULSUBHAN SHAIK

AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. NIPPANI, TQ: CHIKODI

DIST: BELGAUM 590 001

...APPELLANTS

(By Sri.SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SHOBHA W/O. BHAUSAHEB PATIL

AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. SHIVAJINAGAR, NIPPANI

TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELGAUM 590 001

2 . SHAHANAJ W/O. V.A. ABDULSUBHAN SHAIK

AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. AMMANAGI, TQ: HUKKERI

DIST: BELGAUM 590 001

3 . ABDULJIJ S/O. A. ABDULSUBHAN SHAIK

: 2 :

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK

R/O. AMMANAGI, TQ: HUKKERI

DIST: BELGAUM 590 001

RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1.

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RSA FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE

JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:02.03.2013 PASSED IN

R.A.NO.11/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING

OFFICER,

FAST

TRACK

COURT-I,

CHIKODI,

PARTLY

ALLOWING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

DTD:14.03.2012 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.

NO.138/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,

NIPANI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR RELIEF OF

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 02.03.2013 passed by the learned Presiding

Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, in RA No.11/2012

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate Court’ for short)

wherein the appeal came to be allowed in part. The

operative portion is as under:

“ The appeal preferred by the appellants U/o

41 Rule 1 of CPC are hereby partly allowed.

: 3 :

The

judgment

and

decree

passed

in

O.S.No.138/02 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC

Nippani, dated 14.3.2012 is hereby set aside and

modified as under:-

Suit

of

the

plaintiff

is

partly

decreed.

Defendant No.1 to 4 shall execute registered sale

deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ suit

property, within three months from the date if this

order, after converting into non agricultural purpose.

Further

plaintiff

is

entitle

the

refund

of

Rs.21,000/- from defendant No.1 to 4. defendants

are jointly and severally liable to refund the said

amount within three months. In case of non

payment of amount of Rs.21,000/-, plaintiff is entitle

the interest at 10% after t here months from today.

Further, in case of default defendants to

execute the ‘A’ schedule property. The plaintiff is at

liberty to get the sale deed execute under due

process of law through court.”

2.

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping,

the parties are address in accordance with their rank and

status as stood in the trial Court.

3.

The

plaintiff

filed

a

suit

for

specific

performance on the file of the learned Civil Judge and

JMFC, Nipani (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’,

for short) in O.S.No.138/2002 against the defendant-Smt.

Shahanaj and 3 others.

4.

The case of the plaintiff in brief is that one

V.A. Abdulsubhan Shaikh, husband of defendant No.1 and

: 4 :

father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was the owner in

possession of the schedule property. During his life time,

he had entered into two agreements of sale with the

plaintiff on 25.3.1995 agreeing to sell ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule

property for Rs.6,000/- and Rs.21,000/- respectively. ‘A’

schedule property is a vacant land and ‘B’ schedule

property is a residential house. Out of the total

consideration amount, Rs.1,000/- was paid and it was

agreed to execute the registered sale deed within three

months from the date of ‘A’ schedule property being

converted into