Though this appeal is listed for admission,

with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is

taken up for final disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging judgment

and

decree

dated

09.04.2018

passed

by

I

Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Dharwad

(“first

appellate

Court”,

for

short)

in

R.A.no.6/2016

dismissing

appeal

confirming

judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed by

III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Dharwad (for short, “trial Court”) in

- 5 -

O.S.no.195/2009, dismissed suit filed for specific

performance of contract.

Appellants

herein

are

legal

representatives

of

original

plaintiff,

while

respondents herein were defendants no.1 to 7 in

suit.

For

sake

of

convenience,

they

shall

hereinafter be referred to by their rank in original

suit.

O.S.no.195/2009 was filed seeking for

specific performance of agreement of sale.

In plaint, it was stated that plaintiff was

tenant of land bearing block no.39 measuring 01

acre 10 guntas of Gulaganjikoppa village, Dharwad

(hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). One

Somashekharappa

Gurusiddappa

Kongi

and

Basappa

Gangappa

Kongi

were

landlords.

On

25.05.1993, they executed an agreement for sale

of suit property to plaintiff for total consideration

- 6 -

of Rs.39,101/- by receiving Rs.501/- as advance.

Thereafter,

Basappa

Gangappa

Kongi

died

on

26.06.1995.

And

two

years

prior

to

suit

Somashekharappa also died. Prior to same and

since plaintiff was in possession of suit property as

tenant,

Somashekharappa

got

plaintiff

to

file

application under Section 77A of Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘KLR Act’). But when

application came up for hearing he changed his

mind and contested it. And thereafter executed

agreement of sale.

It was further stated that defendant no.1

was wife of Somashekharappa, defendants no.2 to

4 his children, defendants no.5 and 6 his brother

and sister and defendant no.7 was son of Basappa

Kongi. Thus, defendants no.1 to 7 were legal

representatives of sellers and were bound to

complete the contract. But they failed to do so

even on demand. On other hand, plaintiff received

- 7 -

summons in O.S.no.1018/2008 filed by defendants

no.5 and 7 against him for injunction. Hence,

present suit was filed.

Upon service of suit summons, defendant

no.7 filed written statement which was adopted by

defendants no.1 and 3 to 5. They contended that

there was no cause of action to file suit and it was

barred

by

limitation.

There

was

improper

description of suit property and they denied that

plaintiff was tenant in possession and cultivation

of

suit

property.

Defendant

no.7

specifically

contended that plaintiff was owner of adjacent land

and with intention to grab it filed false suit. It was

also asserted that value of suit property was more

than Rs.5,00,000/- and opposed suit.

Based on pleadings, trial Court framed

following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that

deceased Somashekharappa s/o.

- 8 -

Gurusiddappa Kongi and deceased

Basappa

Gangappa

Kongi

had

executed agreement of sale dated

25.05.1993

for

a

valuable

consideration of Rs.39,101/- in

favour of plaintiff by receiving

earnest

money

of

Rs.501/-

in

respect

of

the

suit

schedule

property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that

he is always ready and willing to

perform his part of contract?

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is

barred by law of limitation?

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that

the

description

of

the

suit

property is correct?

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to

the relief sought for?

(6) What order or decree?

Thereafter, plaintiff examined himself and

three others as PWs.1 to PW.4. Exhibits P1 to P12

- 9 -

were marked. Defendant no.7 was examined as

DW.1. Exhibits D.1 to D.42 were marked.

10. On consideration, trial Court answered

issues no.1 and 5 in negative; issue no.2 partly in

affirmative; issues no.3 and 4 in affirmative and

issue no.6 by dismissing suit with costs etc.

11. Aggrieved by said decree, defendant no.2

filed R.A.no.6/2016 on seve