1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

GULBARGA BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.836/2006

BETWEEN:

1.

Venkamma

W/o Late Raghavendrachar dead

(suit was abated)

2.

Laxmidevi

W/o Late Venkobachar

Aged: 52 years,

Occupation: Household

R/o Beroon Quila Near

Laxminarayana Temple

Raichur – 584 102.

Since dead, represented by her Legal

Representatives:

1.

Manoj S/o Venkobachar

2.

Kishore S/o Venkobachar

3.

Raghavendra S/o Venkobachar

4.

Mukunda S/o P. Venkobachar

All are majors

R/o Beroon Killa

Near Laxminarayana Temple,

2

Raichur-584 102.

4.

Shyamachar

S/o Late Raghavendrachar

Aged: 56 years, Occupation: Accounts

Superintendent,

UKP Almatti

Bijapur (District)

Now R/o Hospet-586 101.

… APPELLANTS

(Shri P.S. Malipatil and

Shri Gururaj Rao Kakkeri, Advocate for appellant-3

Shri N. Chandrashekarayya,

Shri Mallinath Hiremath,

Shri Prasanna Sharma and

Shri Govaradhan Reddy, Advocate for appellant

Shri Praveen Kumar Raikote (Noc), Advocate)

AND:

Ramanlal S/o Chaganlal Kothari

Aged: 36 years,

Occupation: Agriculture and Business

R/o Bhagyalakshmi

Saree Centre Cloth Bazaar

M.G. Road,

Raichur – 484 101.

….RESPONDENT

This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of

CPC against the Judgement and Award dated 28.2.2006 passed

in O.S. No. 117/1995 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge

(Senior Division) at Raichur, decreeing the suit for specific

performance.

3

This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the Court

delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellants were the defendants before the Trial

Court. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial

Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that he was the

owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, having

been put in possession under an agreement of sale dated

12.11.1990 and that the defendants were the joint owners who

had executed the agreement for a sale consideration of

Rs.1,42,800/- and had received an advance amount of

Rs.19,000/- under the agreement of sale. The balance was to be

paid at the time of registration of the sale and the defendants

had agreed to produce the original documents of title at the time

of execution of the registration of the sale deed. It is alleged

4

that the plaintiff thereafter made several attempts to complete

the transaction, but the defendants delayed the same on one or

the other pretext and postponed the transaction and when the

defendants were trying to negotiate with a third party to sell the

property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff, the plaintiff was

constrained to file the suit. The suit against Defendant No.1

was dismissed, as the plaintiff had failed to take out process and

Defendants 2 and 3 having entered appearance, had contested

the suit claiming that Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner

of the property and she was in possession of the same. The

land was service inam land and occupancy rights in respect of

the land had been granted by the Land Tribunal, Raichur

District under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977

and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and that the

Defendants 2 and 3 did not have any right over the land during

the lifetime of Defendant No.1 and that the Defendant No.2 was

the widow of late Venkobachar who was the predeceased son of

Defendant No.1. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 could not

5

claim exclusive title to the property and the plaintiff knowing

the same, was claiming under the agreement of sale, which was

a nullity. Further, it was pointed out that the agreement of sale

contains a specific clause that in the event of failure to the

agreement or breach committed by the defendant, the plaintiff

was only entitled to recover the earnest money with interest and

therefore, the suit for specific performance was misconceived

and no relief could be g