Bangalore District Court
Sri. B.Srirama Reddy vs Smt. T.Chittamma on 28 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 28th day of February 2015.
PRESENT: S.V.KULKARNI, B.Com., LLB(Spl)
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.2191 of 2001
C.C.H.8
Plaintiff: Sri. B.Srirama Reddy,
son of Byrappa,
aged about 36 years, formerly
residing at No.12,
V.P.Khatha No.10/12,
Katrigguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk
Presently residing at No.103,
3rd C Main Road, 20th Cross,
6th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore
(By Sri.S.V.B Advocate)
: Vs :
Defendant/s: 1. Smt. T.Chittamma
W/o T.Chinnappa Naidu,
aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.96,
II Main, 1st cross,
Kempegowda Layout,
Banashankari III Stage,
Kattariguppe, Bangalore-85
2 OS. No.2191/2001
2. Sri. S.R.Prakash
S/o Sri. S.Radhakrishnaiah,
aged about 39 years, R/O
No.51, V Main Road, II
Cross, Srinivasanagar,
Bangalore-50
(Sri.S.D.R. advocate for D.1-Expt on
20.4.2001
Sri. S.G.K Advocate for D.2)
Date of the institution of 26.3.2001
suit:
Nature of the suit: Specific performance
Date of the commencement 14.12.2001
of recording of the evidence:
Date on which the judgment 28.02.2015
was pronounced :
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
13 11 02
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 and 2 seeking for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of alleged sale agreement dated 3 OS. No.2191/2001 29.11.1999 executed by the 1st defendant in respect of suit schedule property and plaintiff has prayed for grant of specific performance relief and also plaintiff has prayed for grant of specific performance relief and also plaintiff has prayed for awarding possession of the suit schedule property on the allegations of his dispossession from the suit schedule property on 26.2.2000 and sought possession of the schedule property from defendant No.2 and costs of the suit and for other consequential releifs.
2. The case of the plaintiff has stated in the plaint averments briefly stated as follows:-
The 1st defendant being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property purchased under sale deed dated 19.11.1999 from its erstwhile owner, wherein the subject matter of the suit is in respect of residential property as described in the plaint schedule:-
SCHEDULE Part and parcel of house property bearing No. 12, V.P.katha No.10/12 Kattariguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli,Bangalore South Taluk measuring east-west 43' + 45'/2 and north-south 30' + 25'/2 consisting of 12 sq.ft. building and bounded on east by road, west by site No.14 and 15, north by site No.11 and south by site No.13.4 OS. No.2191/2001
and this schedule property is consisting of ground floor and first floor and 2nd floor premises having purchased by the 1st defendant under sale deed dated 19.11.1999 from its previous vendor. It is the case of the plaintiff that 1st defendant, for her family necessity, offered to sell the schedule property in his favour for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and pursuant to the said offer and acceptance by the plaintiff an agreement of sale was entered into between plaintiff and 1st defendant on 29.11.1999 and plaintiff has paid earnest amount ( Part consideration amount of Rs.2,80,000/-) to 1st defendant and 1st defendant had received the said amount and executed sale agreement in favour of plaintiff on 29.11.1999 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of execution of agreement and to execute registered sale deed by conveying title after change of katha in respect of suit schedule property in her name and also 1st defendant had agreed to pay out standing electricity and other necessary taxes in respect of schedule property and to convey the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and it is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant had parted with possession of the schedule property to plaintiff by putting him in possession of the schedule property under performance of the contract and further it is the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property is house property measuring east-west 5 OS. No.2191/2001 43' + 45'/2 and north-south 30' + 25'/2 with 12 square building constructed thereon consisting of ground and two storeyed building, wherein ground floor premises was occupied by the tenants and plaintiff was put in possession in respect of the first floor and 2nd floor was vacant. Hence, plaintiff claims his possession in respect of the 1st floor premises of the schedule property under part performance of contract under agreement of sale.
The plaintiff during the 1st week of January 2000 approached the 1st defendant demanded her to furnish the original title documents in respect of schedule property and to execute registered sale deed in respect of the same. However, 1st defendant requested the plaintiff to grant her some time as she has not yet obtained katha transferred in her name from her previous vendor and also to get some other documents from various authorities and in view of these reasons, the plaintiff had to wait for some more time and thereafter, he met 1st defendant during 1st week of February 2000 and demanded her to execute sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- , but 1st defendant for some other reasons best known to her postponed to execute sale deed by giving evasive replies and reasons and thereafter, during 3rd week of February 2000, to the utter shock of the plaintiff, wherein 1st defendant along with her men and other attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property and when 6 OS. No.2191/2001 plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police and filed complaint against 1st defendant and others, wherein the jurisdictional police have refused to give protection stating that the matter is of civil in nature and hence, plaintiff was compel to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievances and hence, plaintiff left with no alternative constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction relief in O.S.No.1276/2000 on the file of City Civil Court restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and he filed permanent injunction suit on 22.2.2000 and after coming to know about the suit filed by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and her husband Sri. T.Chinnappa Naidu along with some police men, came near the schedule property on 26.2.2000 and forcibly took possession from the plaintiff in respect of first floor premises, wherein the entire house hold articles belongs to the plaintiff were seized by the police and thereafter plaintiff had moved before the 2nd ACMM court, Bangalore for release of seized goods, wherein the said court was ordered to release the goods belongs to the plaintiff.
It is the further alleged by the plaintiff that before filing the suit i.e., O.S.No.1276/2000, the 1st defendant never refused to execute the sale deed in his favour. Further the time for execution of sale deed is still available and plaintiff was preferred to file a suit for bare injunction though plaintiff 7 OS. No.2191/2001 was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contractual obligation i.e., to pay balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- and to get the sale deed executed from 1st defendant. In fact, the plaintiff was put in possession of the schedule property under part performance of contract, wherein earlier, the 1st defendant herself was residing in the schedule property and thereafter she vacated the same and started staying at House No.46, II Main, 1st Cross, Kempegowda Layout, Banashankari III Stage Kattariguppe village Bangalore and thereafter, plaintiff was staying in the first floor premises and in the ground floor, two tenants were occupying and 2nd floor portion was kept vacant. The plaintiff had also sent legal notice calling upon the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and notice was sent to both defendants by registered post and also by way of UPC, wherein the notice sent through RPAD returned back to the plaintiff's address with a shara the party is out of station. However, the notice sent under UPC was received by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff further alleged that though legal notice sent to the 1st defendant was prepared and sent on 29.09.2000 itself. However, due to mistake the date of notice was mentioned as 3.3.2000. The plaintiff further alleged that he came to know on 26.2.2000 when he was dispossessed forcibly from the suit schedule property about the sole intention of the 1st defendant in defrauding the plaintiff and collusion of 8 OS. No.2191/2001 defendant No.1 and 2, wherein the 2nd defendant in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in respect of agreement to sell dated 29.11.1999 , wherein 1st defendant had sold the suit schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant on 21.1.2000 and 2nd defendant was aware and had the knowledge of the fact of execution of sale agreement dated 29.11.1999 in favour of plaintiff and despite having knowledge, 2nd defendant had purchased suit schedule property from 1st defendant on 21.1.2000, wherein the agreement to sell held by the plaintiff is prior to the sale deed executed in favour of 2nd defendant and plaintiff is not bound by the sale deed held by 2nd defendant dated 21.1.2000 and on the contrary the alleged sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant dated 21.1.2000 does not confer any right, title and interest in favour of 2nd defendant. Hence, 2nd defendant is not a lawful purchaser and also he is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property under sale deed. The plaintiff pleaded his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract/obligation to pay balance sale consideration amount and to obtain sale deed from 1st defendant. However, 1st defendant, who failed an neglected to perform her part of obligation , the plaintiff further alleged that this being the fact that when the suit filed by him in O.S.No.1276/2000 was filed and 1st defendant has not expressed anything about the non performance of contract obligations, wherein a suit for bare injunction was filed and 9 OS. No.2191/2001 it is only on 26.2.2000, the plaintiff came to know about the existence of sale deed executed on 21.1.2000 in favour of 2nd defendant and in view of the same, the suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction relief by that time became infructuous and plaintiff would take necessary steps in the suit and further pursuant to the agreement to sell, the plaintiff, who was put in possession of the schedule property and thereafter he was dispossessed from the schedule property forcibly. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for redeliver of possession in respect of suit schedule property and hence, plaintiff alleging cause of action in para No.9 of the plaint contending that cause of action arose on the date of agreement of sale i.e., on 29.11.1999 and further on 13.2.2000 and on 20.2.2000 and when 1st defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff and on 26.2.2000 when 1st defendant forcibly dispossessed him from the suit schedule property and thereafter after issuance of legal notice on 29.2.2000 and hence, plaintiff constrained to file the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of alleged sale agreement dated 29.11.1999.
3. Originally the defendant No.1 and 2 were placed exparte and this suit was disposed of by this court exparte on 18.7.2002, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract was dismissed and plaintiff's suit was decreed partly for refund of earnest amount and by awarding damages, wherein the plaintiff being aggrieved by 10 OS. No.2191/2001 the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2000 had preferred RFA before the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.898/2000 and defendant No.2 also filed miscellaneous case for setting aside exparte judgment and decree passed against him in M.C.No.266/2003 and Hon'ble High Court after hearing in 1st appeal, preferred by the plaintiff/appellant, wherein the RFA preferred by the plaintiff /appellant came to be allowed by judgment dated 9.10.2000, wherein the Hon'ble High Court allowed the 1st appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in this suit and remanded the suit to trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to defendants to file their written statement and contest the claim. However, the 1st defendant remained absent in the RFA proceedings, wherein the notice of RFA against respondent No.1 was dispensed with. After receipt of the records of the suit, this court issued court notice to both the parties, wherein plaintiff and defendant No.2 appeared and counsel for defendant No.2 filed written statement and though 1st defendant had engaged counsel after remand of the suit, but defendant No.1 failed to file her written statement after remand of the suit and accordingly, written statement of 1st defendant taken as not filed, wherein only defendant No.2 filed his written statement to answer the claim of the plaintiff and the defence filed by the 2nd defendant is summarizes briefly as follows:-
11 OS. No.2191/2001The address of the plaintiff given in the plaint cause title is not correct and the same is denied and plaintiff at no point of time had residing at No.12 V.P.Katha No.10/12, Kattariguppe village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The address of the 2nd defendant is bearing No. 12, V.P.Katha No.10/12 Uttarahalli Hobli Bangalore South Taluk , wherein defendant No.2 was earlier to his purchase of the schedule property was residing at No.51, 5th Main road, 2nd Cross, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore-50. This defendant is represented by his counsel, wherein defendant admits that the 1st defendant Smt. T.Chittamma was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 19.11.1999, but defendant No.2 emphatically denies that the 1st defendant for her family necessity offered to sell the schedule property in favour of plaintiff for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.11.1999 and 1st defendant had executed sale agreement in favour of plaintiff by receiving earnest amount of Rs.2,80,000/- on 29.11.1999 and also defendant No.2 denied that 1st defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property under part performance of agreement to sell and on the contrary, defendant No.2 contended that no possession was given to the plaintiff and as such, question of plaintiff claiming possession in respect of suit schedule property does not arises. Hence, the defendant No.2 further contended that 12 OS. No.2191/2001 the alleged sale agreement relied by the plaintiff dated 29.11.1999 was not valid in law and plaintiff does not get any right under the said agreement and it was purely a money lending transaction drafted in the form of agreement of sale and it was never intended to be treated as regular agreement of sale. The defendant No.2 denies the allegations contained in para 4 of the plaint and further contended that the said transaction alleged between plaintiff and 1st defendant was purely a loan transaction. Hence, the question of plaintiff demanding the 1st defendant to execute sale deed and 1st defendant postponing the execution of sale deed by giving false and evasive reply does not arises at all. The defendant No.2 denied the allegations as made in para No.4 of the plaint regarding 1st defendant and her husband T.Chinnappa Naidu along with some police may came near the schedule property on 26.2.2000 and forcibly took possession from the plaintiff. On the contrary, defendant No.2 contended that he was put in possession of the entire suit schedule property on the date of registration of the sale deed on 21/24.01.2000 itself. Hence, there was no question of forcibly taking possession from the plaintiff on 26.2.2000. The defendant No.1 being the title holder and in possession of the suit schedule property has sold the said property in favour of defendant No.2 for valuable consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- under registered sale deed dated 21.1.2000 and has delivered vacant possession of 1st 13 OS. No.2191/2001 and 2nd floor of the said premises to defendant No.2 and in respect of ground floor portion, which were in the occupation of two tenants, which have been delivered later.
Thus, defendant No.2 being the purchaser of the said property being put in possession thereof as he is the absolute owner in possession thereof under sale deed dated 21/24.01.2000. Hence, defendant No.2 proclaimed himself as bonafide purchaser for value, who has purchased the property in good faith without any notice of alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 existed in favour of plaintiff or anyone else. Defendant No.2, who was in need of residential house for his occupation has purchased the property and he has put in possession thereof from time of his purchase. Hence, defendant No.2 contended that plaintiff was very well aware of the purchase of the schedule property by him, who was present through out the transaction and plaintiff was also present at the time of registration of the sale deed and he never disclosed any such agreement of sale existence in his favour nor objected for the sale deed executed in favour of 2nd defendant. Hence, plaintiff is estopped from claiming any right under an alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 . Defendant No.2 further contended that plaintiff on 28.8.2000 had sent copy of caveat petition and defendant No.2 was not aware of any as and the caveat petition was vague and defendant No.2 had no need or intention to file any such. Hence, he did not bothered about the filing of caveat petition 14 OS. No.2191/2001 by the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 contended that he came to know about the alleged agreement of sale when plaintiff had filed impleading application and when he received notice of I.A.No.5 filed by the plaintiff in the month of September/October 2000 in O.S.No.1276/2000 filed against Smt. T.Chittamma /1st defendant in this suit and 2nd defendant entered appearance after receipt of notice of I.A.No.5 and came to know about filing of O.S.No.1276/2000 and defendant No.2 was about to file his written statement, wherein plaintiff had filed a memo to withdraw the suit O.S.No.1276/2000 stating that the suit filed by him for specific performance was disposed off on that ground, the plaintiff filed memo on 15.7.2003 and withdrew the suit filed in O.S.No.1276/2000 and plaintiff has filed the suit on 23.6.2001 for specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 and 2 before this court seeking for direction to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and for other reliefs and plaintiff has managed to obtain the endorsement regarding service of suit summons of the suit has refused and by obtaining the said endorsement on the summons with ulterior motive, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff was exparte disposed of by exparte judgment, wherein the suit was partially decreed and court granted relief of refund of earnest money and plaintiff preferred RFA NO.898/2002 and in the said RFA, notice was served upon defendant No.2 and only after receipt 15 OS. No.2191/2001 of 1st appeal notice, 2nd defendant came to know about the suit filed in O.S. No. 2191/2001 and it is thereafter the 2nd defendant has preferred miscellaneous case No.266/2003 seeking setting aside an exparte judgment and decree by invoking Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and subsequently the said miscellaneous case No.266/2003 came to be dismissed . Hence, the conduct of the plaintiff is speculative in nature and plaintiff, who was not in possession of the suit schedule property at any rate, on the date of suit filed for injunction in O.S.No.1276/2000 on 22.2.2000 could not maintain the suit for permanent injunction. The defendant No.2 further contended that in the permanent injunction suit on 28.8.2000, the plaintiff has filed three I.As by filing I.A.No.4 to 6 seeking amendment to the pleadings to inclusive several reliefs and particularly the relief of specific performance , I.A.No.5 for restoration of possession and I.A.No.6 for impleading 2nd defendant in that suit, wherein defendant No.2 on receipt of the said IAs ie., impleading I.A filed memo on 4.12.2001/14.2.2002 stating that he has no objections to implead himself as 2nd defendant, wherein I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiff was came to be allowed on 1.4.2002 and 2nd defendant was impleaded in that suit on 12.4.2002 and plaintiff got amended the plaint by impleading 2nd defendant and thereafter, case was posted for filing of amended plaint by the plaintiff and on 15.7.2003, the plaintiff filed memo stating that " the plaintiff submits that in view of the 16 OS. No.2191/2001 judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2191/2001, the plaintiff does not press the suit and hence, the same may please be dismissed as withdrawn". And in view of the memo, the suit was dismissed as with drawn on 15.7.2003 and defendant No.2 contended that in view of filing of permanent injunction suit in O.S.No.1276/2000 and plaintiff filing 3 IAs i.e., I.A.No.4 to 6 for amendment of the plaint, for restoration of possession and for impleading of defendant No.2 and he withdraw the suit on 15.7.2003. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance relief is liable to be dismissed as the present suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. The defendant No.2 denied the allegations of readiness and willingness as averred by the plaintiff in para No.5 of the plaint. On the contrary, plaintiff was never put in possession of the schedule property and allegations that the plaintiff was staying in the first floor of the schedule property is specifically denied and regarding issuance of notice and return of notice sent under RPAD and receipt of notice sent under UPC and in the notice sent on 29.2.2000, the mistake of date as mentioned as 3.3.2000 are denied by defendant N.2. The defendant No.2 denied the averments made in para No.6 of the plaint on 21/24.01.2000, when the sale deed in his favour was prepared and registered, wherein plaintiff was present and he cannot be heard now to allege that he came to know about the sale deed existed in favour of 2nd defendant only on 26.2.2000. Hence, there has 17 OS. No.2191/2001 been no dispossession of the plaintiff on 26.2.2000. Hence, 2nd defendant denied his knowledge about the sale agreement dated 29.11.1999 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is perfectly legal and is a valid sale transaction. The allegations made in para No.7 of the plaint are repetition of the allegations. However, defendant No.2 denied the averments made in para No.7. The defendant No.2 is in possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the registered sale deed. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for any directions as prayed in para No.7 of the plaint. Defendant No.2 further denied the averments made in para No.8 of the plaint allegations and defendant No.2 also denied the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit by denying the averments made in para No.9 of the plaint and defendant No.2 further in para No.22 of his written statement specifically contended that present suit is barred in view of the earlier suit in O.S.No.1276/2000 filed on 22.2.2000 withdrawn on 15.7.2000 by the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and on the other hand , plaintiff has suppressed the truth. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him on the basis of alleged agreement, which is invalid agreement of sale. Hence, defendant No.2 on this defence further contended that suit even otherwise is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
18 OS. No.2191/20014. Based upon these pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial of the suit :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that first defendant had executed sale agreement agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.3 lakhs and had received part consideration amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and executed sale agreement dated 29-11-1999 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that 1st defendants had delivered the possession of suit schedule property to him and as such plaintiff proves his possession in respect of suit schedule property in part performance of agreement to sell?
3. Whether plaintiff proves his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in respect of sale agreement dated 29-11-1999?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that first defendant had forcibly dispossessed him on the suit schedule property on 26-2-2000?
5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property for a valuable consideration from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 21/24-1-2000 without having knowledge of agreement dated 21-11-1999?
6. Whether defendant No.2 proves that the suit is barred by order 2 Rule 2 CPC and as such suit is not maintainable?19 OS. No.2191/2001
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance of contract?
8. What decree or order?
5. In order to prove the above issues, wherein though plaintiff was originally examined in this case prior to remand of the suit on 14.12.2001, wherein plaintiff got marked Ex.P.1 to P.8 in his oral evidence on 28.3.2002 and after remand again plaintiff was examined on 10.12.2014 and got marked documents Ex.P.9 to P.23 and further plaintiff has examined by filing additional chief examination on 17.12.2014 in respect of stating that the 2 attesting witnesses, who have signed on the agreement to sell, wherein the husband of 1st defendant and one Sri. Ramaswamy both attesting witnesses have died and accordingly, P.W.1 filed his additional examination-in-chief in lieu of affidavit evidence and plaintiff got examined one witness P.W.2 namely Munireddy on 15.12.2014 and with this evidence, plaintiff side evidence was closed. The 1st defendant though appeared in the suit, but she failed to file the written statement and also 1st defendant failed to enter the witness box and accordingly, it is taken as there is no evidence on behalf of 1st defendant. 2nd defendant is examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to D.20 in his oral evidence and defendant No.2 further examined his brother S.R.Venkatesh as D.W.2 and also examined the tenant, who was occupied ground floor premises namely K.Vishwanath as 20 OS. No.2191/2001 witness D.W.3 and with this evidence, the evidence of defendant No.2 came to be closed in the above suit and thereafter, this matter was posted for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for 2nd defendant, wherein the counsel for defendant No.1 failed to address his arguments and after hearing the arguments plaintiff's side and defendant No.2, the suit is posted for arguments.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following citations in support of his arguments contention is as follows:-
1. AIR 1993 SC 1756 (Inacio Martins Vs. Narayan Hari Naik)
2. AIR 2009 (NOC) 2942 Balwant Singh Vs. Buta Ram)
3. AIR 2005 kar 70 (Sri.Chinnappa Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore)
4. AIR 1997 P & H 136, (Sohan Singh Vs. Fauja Singh)
5. AIR 2000 SC 1658 ( R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah Vs. Hajee)
6. AIR 2000 SC 2921( Ram Niwas Vs. Bano) 21 OS. No.2191/2001 The learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 relied upon the following citations in support of his arguments contention is as follows:-
1. AIR 2001 Delhi 2220 (Kamal Kishore Saboo Vs. N.Humayun Kamal Hassan Khan)
2. AIR 2004 Bombay 455( Gajanan R.Salvi Vs. Satish Shankar Gupta and others)
3. AIR 1990 Kar 249 (S.N.Ramachandra Vs. State of Karnataka)
4. (2013) 1 SCC 625( Virgo Industries (Eng) (p) Ltd., Vs. Venturetech Slutions (P) Ltd.,)
5. 2014 SAR (Civil) 808 (Coffee Board Vs. M/S Ramesh Exports P Ltd)
6. Copy of CPC u/o II Rule 2 of CPC'
7. Extract copy of Stamp Act . Art.5
8. Copy of Evidence Act Under Sec. 107 & 108
9. Copy of Specific Relief Act under Sec. 19
7. On appreciation of the pleadings filed in this suit and on appreciation of evidence of plaintiff i.e., PW.1 and P.W.2 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.23 and that of D.W.1 to D.W.3 and documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.20, and considering the arguments addressed by the respective counsel, I answer the above issues are as follows:-
22 OS. No.2191/2001Issue No.1 Partly in affirmative and partly in negative Issue No.2: In the negative;
Issue No.3: In the negative
Issue No.4: In the negative;
Issue No.5: In the affirmative;
Issue No.6: In the affirmative;
Issue No.7: The plaintiff is not entitled for
the relief of specific
performance of contract.
Issue No.8: The suit filed by the plaintiff
deserves to be partly decreed
against defendant No1. for
recovery of amount of
Rs.2,80,000/- paid under the
Ex.P.1 dated 29.11.1999 with
interest at 8% p.a from the
date of execution of Ex.P.1 till
realization by defendant No.1
with costs of the suit and suit
against defendant No2.
deserves to be dismissed for
the following reasons:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 4: It is the specific case of the
plaintiff that 1st defendant being the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property purchased under sale deed dated 19.11.1999 and 1st defendant for her financial necessity and in order to secure all the debts offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff 23 OS. No.2191/2001 and after sale negotiation held between plaintiff and 1st defendant, wherein 1st defendant agreed to sell the schedule property in favour of plaintiff for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and executed sale agreement on 29.11.1999 after receiving of earnest money of Rs.2,80,000/- paid by the plaintiff and 1st defendant was agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of Rs.20,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed and 6 months time was fixed for performance of the contract to convey sale deed in favour of plaintiff by the 1st defendant after change of katha in her name in respect of schedule property and though plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to execute sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount by proving his readiness and willingness, but 1st defendant went on postponing to execute the sale deed and thereafter 1st defendant and her husband tried to dispossess the plaintiff and threatened to his possession on 13.1.2000 and 20.1.2000 and thereafter, plaintiff constrained to file a suit against 1st defendant in O.S.No.1276/2000 for permanent injunction relief not to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property and thereafter, plaintiff further alleged that on 26.2.2000, defendant No.2 along with his associates tried to trespass into the first floor premises of the schedule property alleged to be in occupation of the plaintiff under performance of contract under agreement to sell dated 29.11.1999 and tried to dispossess the plaintiff 24 OS. No.2191/2001 and plaintiff had filed complaint before the jurisdictional police on 26.2.2000, but police did not come to the rescue of the plaintiff in pursuance of the said complaint and thereafter, plaintiff came to know that 1st defendant had sold the schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant by sale deed dated 21/24.1.2000 in respect of schedule property and thereafter, plaintiff constrained to cause legal notice to defendant No.1 on 3.3.2000 as per Ex.P.5 and defendant No.1 though received the legal notice sent under UPC, whereas registered notice returned un-served and the plaintiff also stated that defendant No.1 and 2 inspite of service of summons remained exparte in the suit filed by him in O.S. No.2191/2001 and thereafter suit came to be decreed against defendant No.1 and 2 on 18.7.2002 and plaintiff filed memo on 15.7.2003 in O.S.No.1276/2000 stating that in view of the decree passed in O.S. No.2191/2001, the suit filed for permanent injunction, wherein plaintiff do not wish to prosecute the said suit and accordingly, by filing memo on 15.7.2003, the plaintiff had with drawn the suit. Hence, plaintiff alleged that there exist agreement to sell dated 29.11.1999 executed by 1st defendant, which is much prior to the alleged sale deed held by defendant No.2 dated 21/24.1.2000 and hence, plaintiff filed this suit against defendant No.1 and 2 for the relief of specific performance of contract and also claimed that he is in lawful possession of the first floor premises inducted by the plaintiff under 25 OS. No.2191/2001 transaction dated 29.11.1999 and as such, plaintiff claims his possession under Sec.53A of T.P.Act from 29.11.1999 till 26.2.2000 and on 26.2.200, he was dispossess from the first floor premises by defendant No.1 and 2 under the guise of sale deed held by defendant No.2 executed by 1st defendant.
Defendant No.1 prior to remand of the suit, she remained absent and accordingly, he was placed exparte and after remand of the suit in pursuance of the RFA judgment though 1st defendant had appeared through counsel, but 1st defendant failed to contest the suit and 1st defendant did not filed any written statement. Defendant No.2, who has purchased the schedule property from 1st defendant had appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein defendant No.2 denied his knowledge about the alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant and defendant No.2 specifically contended that the alleged transaction relied by the plaintiff is a money transaction existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant and defendant No.1 executed sale deed in his favour on 21/24.01.2000 and defendant No.2 denied the possession of the plaintiff in respect of first floor premises under part performance of contract under Sec. 53(A) of T.P.Act and defendant No.2 specifically contended that plaintiff had obtained a false shara in this suit filed by him in O.S. No.2191/2001 in respect of service of summons of defendant No.2 and got placed exparte and accordingly, 26 OS. No.2191/2001 defendant No.2 had field miscellaneous case for restoration of exparte judgment and decree passed against him and in view of RFA judgment in RFA No.898/2002 the miscellaneous case filed by the defendant No.2 MCNo.266/2003 came to be dismissed and defendant No.2 in his written statement contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1276/2000 in which, plaintiff had filed I.A.No.4 to 6 for seeking amendment to the pleadings impleading 2nd defendant in that suit and to restore possession of the schedule property and first floor premises under Sec. 144 of CPC, wherein the plaintiff had field I.A.No.4 to 6 in pending suit O.S.No.1276/2000 and the said applications were came to be allowed on 1.4.2002 and defendant No.2 impleaded in that suit on 2.4.2002, wherein defendant No.2 submitted no objections to allow impleading application I.A.No.6 filed in O.S.No.1276/2000, but when the suit was posted for filing of amended plaint to 2nd at that stage, plaintiff had with drawn the suit by filing memo on 15.7.2003. Hence, defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiff had with drawn the suit without seeking leave of the court to file for specific performance and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred under provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and hence, defendant No.2 claimed to be bonafide purchaser of schedule property without notice of alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant and hence, defendant No.2 claims that he is bonafide purchaser and 27 OS. No.2191/2001 having valid defence under Sec. 19(b) of Specific Relief Act and defendant No.2 claims to be in possession of the schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 21/24.1.2000 has handed over by the 1st defendant in respect of first floor and 2nd floor premises by handing over actual possession and whereas in respect of ground-floor premises, there are two tenants and defendant No.2 was awarded symbolic possession of the tenanted premises in respect of ground floor and accordingly, the said tenants have accepted the title of the 2nd defendant as land-lord of the premises by virtue of sale deed. Hence, with these defence, 2nd defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and specifically contended that the alleged transaction between plaintiff and 1st defendant was purely a loan transaction. Hence, question of plaintiff demanding the 1st defendant to execute sale deed and plaintiff approaching the 1st defendant seeking for execution of sale deed does not arises and defendant No.2 also denied the dispossession of the plaintiff on 26.12.2000 and hence, defendant No.2 set up his own title and possession and bonafide purchaser of schedule property and also specifically taken defence that plaintiff had falsely obtained endorsement in respect of service of suit summons in O.S. No.2191/2001, wherein defendant No.2 contended that there was no service of suit summons on him and plaintiff had obtained false shara in respect of service of summons on him and plaintiff had obtained false shara in 28 OS. No.2191/2001 respect of service of summons and as such, he was constrained to file M.C.No.266/2003 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside exparte judgment and decree and the said miscellaneous case came to be dismissed in view of the remand of the suit in RFA No.8987/2002. Hence, on the basis of rival pleadings, this court has framed the issues, wherein Issue No.1 to 3, the burden of proof is casted upon plaintiff, wherein plaintiff should establish that the alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 is in real sense, it is out right sale transaction of schedule property owned by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff and on the contrary, defendant No2. is having burden on him to prove that he had no notice of alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 executed in between 1st defendant and plaintiff and defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser purchased the property for valuable consideration under good faith without notice of alleged agreement of sale. With this rival contention, the parties to the suit have adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence , wherein plaintiff himself, who was examined prior to remand of the suit on 14.12.2001 as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.8, wherein plaintiff himself further examined after remand of the suit again on 10.12.2014 and got marked documents Ex.P.9 to P.13 in his further evidence i.e., in his examination-in-chief and on perusal of the chief examination of P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 deposed that he purchased the suit schedule property from 29 OS. No.2191/2001 1st defendant, who was the owner of the schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 19.11.1999 obtained from its original owner one Balakrishna Reddy and sale deed was executed by 1st defendant's husband T.Chinnappa Naidu, who was GPA holder of Balakrishna Reddy and hence, P.W.1 stated that he had paid an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- out of sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to 1st defendant on 29.11.1999 and 1st defendant agreed to convey sale deed within 6 months after complying the terms of agreement of sale after change of katha in her name and plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and P.W.1 deposed his readiness and willingness as required under Sec. 16(c) of Specific Relief Act and P.W.1 further stated that he was put in possession of first floor premises on 29.11.1999 by 1st defendant under part performance of contract and hence, P.W.1 stated in his evidence that he came in possession of first floor premises under agreement to sell and as such, P.W.1 claims to be in possession of first floor premises under Sec. 53 of T.P.Act and P.W.1 also stated that he was dispossessed by the 1st defendant's husband along with defendant No.2 and his workers on 26.2.2000 and accordingly, he constrained to file complaint on 26.2.2000 as per Ex.P.4 and P.9, but jurisdictional police did not take any action in pursuance of the said complaint and P.W.1 deposed that in view of disposal of O.S. No.2191/2001 on 18.7.2002, he got dismissed the suit filed in 30 OS. No.2191/2001 O.S.No.1276/2000 on 15.7.2003. Hence, P.W.1 by reiterating his pleadings set up by him in his plaint averments deposed by giving corroborative evidence in response to the plaint averments filed in this suit and P.W.1 got marked Ex.P.1 to P.23 in oral evidence. P.W.1 has relied upon the following documents, which are marked through his evidence. They are as follows:-
Ex.P.1 is Agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff, Ex.P.2 is Certified copy of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 21.1.2000, Ex.P.3 is Encumbrance certificate from 1.4.1998 to 16.7.2000, Ex.P.4 is Complaint copy dated 26.2.2000. Ex.P.5 is Office copy of legal notice, Ex.P.6 is un-served postal cover, Ex.P.7 is certificate of posting, Ex.P.8 is Certified copy of order sheet in C.C. No. 4670/2000, Ex.P.9 is Office copy of complaint dated 26.2.2000, Ex.P.10 is Certified copy of FIR, Ex.P.11 is Certified copy of compliant filed by defendant No.2, Ex.p.12 is Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.P.13 is Certified copy of deposition of defendant No.2 in CC No.4670/2000 dated 3-3-2003, Ex.P.14 is Certified copy of deposition of I.O in that CC dated 3-3-2003, Ex.P.15 is Certified copy of 161 statement of one T.Muniraju, Ex.P.16 is Certified copy of further statement of defendant No.2, dated 26-2-2000, Ex.P.17 is Certified copy of PF filed in CC No.467/2000, Ex.P.18 is Certified copy of Mahazar in C.C.No. 4670 of 2000 31 OS. No.2191/2001 dated 27-2-2000, Ex.P.19 is Certified copy of 313 statement in CC No.4670/2000, Ex.P.20 is Certified copy of judgment in CC No.467/2000 dated 21-8-2003, Ex.P.21 is Office copy of legal notice dated 3-3-2000, Ex.P.22 is Returned RPAD cover with postal A/D and Ex.P.23 is Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.1276/2000 Hence, P.W.1 by his oral evidence and documents Ex.P.1 to P. 23 has prayed for grant of relief as prayed by him in the suit.
9. The counsel appearing for the defendant No2. cross examined P.W.1 at length after remand of the suit, wherein P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he is not in possession of the schedule property and P.W.1 admits that he is doing agricultural and also he is doing real estate business having landed property situated at Chickballapur to the extent of 15 acres of land and P.W.1 admits he is income tax assessee and his annual income is Rs.10-00 lakhs both from agricultural and real estate business and P.W.1 admits that he is having bank account with Syndicate Bank, Koramangala Branch and also he is having bank account at Syndicate Bank, Jayanagar and Tyagarajanagar Branches, Bangalore and P.W.1 admits that he knew 1st defendant and her husband T.Chinnappa Naidu since 20 years ago wherein the husband of 1st defendant had kept RCC concrete machine and P.W.1 further stated that he intended to 32 OS. No.2191/2001 purchase the schedule property belongs to 1st defendant and sale talks were held in the month of April 1999 and finally concluded on 4.11.1999 and sale talks were concluded on 29.11.1999, wherein 1st defendant agreed to sell the schedule property in his favour for Rs.3,00,000/- and accordingly, 1st defendant has executed sale agreement on 29.11.1999 and 1st defendant herself had purchased the stamp papers required for preparation of sale agreement and he accompanied 1st defendant to purchase the stamp papers and stamp paper was typed with agreement of sale and stamp papers were purchased prior to 29.11.1999. But P.W.1 cannot give specific date regarding purchase of stamp papers for preparation of agreement of sale and P.W.1 in his cross-
examination stated that he do not know the name of 1st defendant's vendor and P.W.1 also denied his knowledge whether he has taken any participation in the sale transaction of defendant No.1, when she purchased the schedule property and P.W.1 denied that he do not remember whether he is a attesting witness for the sale deed obtained by 1st defendant and P.W.1 stated that sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was mutually agreed between him and 1st defendant and he has paid Rs.2,80,000/- on 29.11.1999 and P.W.1 further stated that he has collected the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- paid to the 1st defendant from his wife, who is a professional doctor and also he has collected some amount, which was kept in his house and paid 33 OS. No.2191/2001 to 1st defendant and P.W.1 stated that he has not with drawn an amount from his bank account on that day i.e., on 29.11.1999 of Rs.2,80,000/-. On the contrary, P.W.1 stated that he has kept ready that amount in his house since 15 years ago to the date of execution of sale agreement and further P.W.1 stated that he collected the amount to be paid towards earnest amount to the 1st defendant as he has received agricultural income from his lands and also P.W.1 stated that his wife contributed some portion of amount as she received from her medical profession and P.W.1 admits that he will produce bank account statement to show that he is having financial capacity to pay the earnest amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to 1st defendant and even P.W.1 admits that he cannot produce the bank account statement of himself and his wife at this stage and P.W.1 admits that he had no impediment to tender the amount of earnest amount to 1st defendant by issuing cheque. However, P.W.1 voluntarily stated that 1st defendant insisted him to pay cash and accordingly, he has tendered earnest amount by way of cash on that day. The counsel for defendant No.2 posed questions to P.W.1 suggesting that the transaction under Ex.P.1 is a loan transaction, but P.W.1 answered that it is not loan transaction, whereas it is in respect of purchased of schedule property belongs to 1st defendant .
34 OS. No.2191/200110. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that he do not know the date of purchase of the property by 1st defendant and P.W.1 claims to have verified the documents of title of 1st defendant prior to execution of Ex.P.1, wherein he is verified registered sale deed of 1st defendant in respect of schedule property and 1st defendant had disclosed the sale deed held by her for his verification prior to 4 days earlier to execution of Ex.P.1, but P.W.1 stated that he do not know the date of the sale deed purchased by 1sdt defendant and P.W.1 admits that he has not obtained any legal opinion prior to execution of sale agreement Ex.P.1 an he do not know that the 1st defendant had purchased the schedule property on 19.11.1999 and even P.W.1 do not know the stamp papers for Ex.P.1 were purchased on 18.9.1999 as the stamp papers were purchased by 1st defendant for Ex.P.1 on 18.11.1999 and P.W.1 admits that at the time of execution of Ex.P.1 he has not obtained original title documents from the 1st defendant and P.W.1 stated that 1st defendant had given him a set of xerox copies of documents of title on the date of Ex.P.1 i.e. on 29.11.1999 and the said xerox copies of set of documents are in his custody and P.W.1 stated that he do not remember his residential address at the time of execution of Ex.P.1. However, witness P.W.1 voluntarily stated that he was residing at that time in a rented premises and he is residing since last 10 years in a rented house in Jayanagar extension and P.W.1 denied his knowledge that 1st defendant 35 OS. No.2191/2001 in order to repay his loan amount had offered to sell the schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant. Again P.W.1 denied the suggestion and also denied the alleged loan transaction suggested to him between defendant No.1 and himself and P.W.1 denied that he was present at the time of sale negotiations held between defendant No.1 and 2 and he is aware of the sale deed held by defendant No.2 and P.W.1 also denied his presence at the time of execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and P.W.1 denied that by misusing the agreement executed by 1st defendant he has filed a false suit against defendants.
11. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that he do not know the date of purchase of the property by 1st defendant and P.W.1 claims to have verified the documents of title of 1st defendant prior to execution of Ex.P.1, wherein he is verified registered sale deed of 1st defendant in respect of schedule property and 1st defendant had disclosed the sale deed held by her for his verification prior to 4 days earlier to execution of Ex.P.1, but P.W.1 stated that he do not know the date of sale deed purchased by 1st defendant and P.W.1 admits he has not obtained any legal opinion prior to execution of sale agreement Ex.P.1 and he do not know that the 1st defendant had purchased schedule property on 19.11.1999 and even P.W.1 do not know the stamp papers for Ex.P.1 were purchased on 18.9.1999 as the stamp papers were purchased by 1st defendant for Ex.P.1 , he has not 36 OS. No.2191/2001 obtained original title documents from the 1st defendant and P.W.1 stated that 1st defendant had given him a set of xerox copies of documents of title on the date of Ex.P.1 i.e., on 29.11.1999 and the said xerox copies of set of documents are in his custody and P.W.1 stated that he do not remember his residential address at the time of execution of Ex.P.1. However, witness P.W.1 voluntarily stated that he was residing at that time in a rented premises and he is residing since last 10 years in a rented house in Jayanagar extension and P.W.1 denied his knowledge that 1st defendant in order to repay his loan amount had offered to sell the schedule property in favour of 2nd defendant. Again P.W.1 denied the suggestion and also denied the alleged loan transaction suggested to him between defendant No.1 and himself and P.W.1 denied that he was present at the time of sale negotiations held between defendant No.1 and 2 and he is aware of the sale deed held by defendant No.2 and P.W.1 also denied his presence at the time of execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and P.W.1 denied that by misusing the agreement executed by 1st defendant, he has filed a false suit against defendants. P.W.1 in his further cross-examination admits that he has filed O.S.No.1276/2000 against 1st defendant only and P.W.1 denied that he has falsely obtained order of exparte against defendants in that suit and P.W.1 do not know whether 1st defendant was residing in the suit schedule property till it 37 OS. No.2191/2001 was sold in favour of defendant No.2 and P.W.1 stated that he do not know whether he has taken back the agreement of sale produced in O.S.No.1276/2000 by filing interim application on 21.7.2000 of O.S.No.1276/2000, wherein P.W.1 denied his signature appearing in the order sheet dated 21.7.2000 and again witness P.W.1 confronted with certified copy of interim application filed in that suit on 21.7.2000 along with his affidavit annexed to that application dated 20.7.2000, wherein P.W.1 identified his signatures on the affidavit sworn to in support of that Interim application filed in that suit and the affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff annexed to interim application filed on 21.7.2000 is marked at Ex.D.1 and his signatures are marked at Ex.D.1(a) and D.1(b ) and counsel for defendant No.2 posed questions to P.W.1 that after withdrawing the agreement of sale from file of O.S.No.1276/2000 whether they produced the said agreement elsewhere, for that P.W.1 has answered that his lawyer has withdrawn the agreement of sale produced O.S.No.1276/2000 for filing specific performance suit and P.W.1 stated that his lawyer had produced the original agreement of sale to the court and he has not produced the sale agreement elsewhere.
12. The counsel for defendant No.2 further cross- examined P.W.1 on 12.12.2014, wherein P.W.1 denied that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and P.W.1 admits that he has paid Rs.200/-
38 OS. No.2191/2001stamp duty of Ex.P.1 and apart from stamp duty, he has paid additional stamp duty of suit agreement Ex.P.1, but he do not remember the date of payment of additional stamp duty of Ex.P.1 and P.W.1 denied that on the pretext of producing Ex.P.1 before the Income Tax Authority, he has obtained Ex.P.1 produced in injunction suit and P.W.1 further stated that defendant No.1 and 2 and husband of 1st defendant and 8 others have attempted to dispossess him from the suit schedule premises and he constrained to file police complaint and P.W.1 admits that he has not sent a legal notice to the 2nd defendant and P.W.1 denied that on 26.2.2000, he along with his house hold articles went to the schedule property and tried to obstruct and trespass into the schedule property and P.W.1 further denied that on 26.2.2000, he kept two women in the schedule property. Further P.W.1 admits that on 26.2.2000 during mid night hours, the police officials came and visited the schedule property and vacated the schedule property. P.W.1 stated that he was not taken to Police Station on 26.2.200 and P.W.1 admits that on 26.2.2000 police officials took two women by name Rathna and Manjula to the Police Station and got them released on the date itself, whereas Chinnappa Reddy was arrested on 26.2.2000 and he was detained in Police Station and P.W.1 admits that he got released the seized house hold articles like LPG stove, gas cylinder and other articles from police custody and he has filed complaint before Sub Inspector of 39 OS. No.2191/2001 concerned Police Station alleging illegal dispossession and P.W.1 stated that police have not taken any action of his complaint. P.W.1 further stated that he came to know about the purchase of property by the 2nd defendant after 15 days thereafter on 26.2.2000 and thereafter the suit filed by him for specific performance was pending and he continued prosecution of that suit and P.W.1 denied that he has filed the suit for specific performance during pendency of injunction suit filed in O.S.No.1276/2000 and P.W.1 admits that he did not noticed the purchase of property by defendant No.2 during tenancy of injunction suit and P.W.1 do not know the date of filing of injunction suit by him and P.W.1 denied that himself and 1st defendant colluded with each other in order to harass defendant No.2 and P.W.1 also denied that he was not in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. P.W.1 admits regarding filing of 4 interim applications in O.S.No.1276/2000 i.e., I.A.No.3 to 6 and witness is confronted with certified copies of I.A.No.3 to 6, wherein he admits all these 4 interim applications are not as Ex.D.2 to D.5 and P.W.1 denied that he has filed interim application to implead 2nd defendant on 28.8.2000 in pending suit O.S.No.1276/2000 and P.W.1 denied that he did not made defendant No.2 as party earlier to injunction suit and he confronted with certified copy of order sheet of O.S.No.1276/2000, which is marked at Ex.D.6 and P.W.1 stated that he do not know whether he had suppressed the 40 OS. No.2191/2001 fact of the suit filed by him in O.S.No.1276/2000 and in O.S. No.2191/2001 and he do not know whether he had filed memo on 15.7.2003 in O.S.No.1276/2000. It is denied by P.W.1 that in the present case also himself and 1st defendant colluding with each other have obtained false shara stating that 2nd defendant had refused the process issued by this court. Plaintiff also denied that he never informed 2nd defendant about Ex.P.1 obtained from 1st defendant. However witness volunteers that he had confronted Ex.P.1 xerox copy to defendant No.1 for about 4- 5 times and disclosed the 2nd defendant regarding existence of Ex.P.1 in the month of January 2000 and P.W.1 admits that he has not pleaded this fact of informing 2nd defendant in respect of Ex.P.1 either in the legal notice Ex.P.5 or in his pleadings and P.W.1 admits that he has not disclosed the amount paid to 1st defendant of Rs.2,80,000/- in his I.T returns and he has also admitted that he has not produced the account statement to show that he has withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from his bank account and P.W.1 stated that on 26.2.2000 T.Chinnappa Naidu, husband of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant and some other rowdy elements dispossessed him during mid night hours on that day and he denied that on 26.2.2000 he was residing in Jayanagar residential property and P.W.1 admits that he has not produced documents to show that he was in possession of 41 OS. No.2191/2001 schedule property till 26.2.2000 the alleged date of dispossession.
13. The plaintiff/P.W.1 further examined through affidavit evidence filed on 17.12.2014 and this additional chief examination is filed by P.W.1 to depose that the attesting witness of Ex.P.1 namely T.Chinnappa Naidu , husband of 1st defendant and another witness by name Ramaswamy, who have attested Ex.P.1 have died, wherein 1st defendant's husband died on 31.10.2007 and attesting witness Sri.Ramaswamy died on 4.7.2006 and P.W.1 stated that though he tried to get death extract of attesting witness, but due to non entry of the date of death, he could not get the death extract of the attesting witness and P.W.1 stated that he has examined witness by name Munireddy, who is having knowledge about the suit transaction. The counsel for defendant No.2 cross examined P.W.1 on 19.12.2014, wherein P.W.1 admits that though he has applied for seeking death extracts of both the witnesses, but he could not get the same and there is reply given by the concerned authority stating that death was not recorded in the concerned death registers maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. The counsel for defendant No.2 confronted to the witness for original sale deed dated 19.11.1999 obtained by 1st defendant, wherein P.W.1 identified his signature on sale deed Ex.P.2, but P.W.1 denied his knowledge about the sale 42 OS. No.2191/2001 deed and also denied to identify his signature and he admits that he can read and write English and Kannada languages.
14. The plaintiff got examined P.W.2 as witness namely T.Munireddy, son of Thippareddy, occupation contractor in this case as witness, wherein he deposed as witness for the plaintiff and P.W.2 stated that he is acquainted with T.Chinnappa Naidu, husband of 1st defendant and T.Chinnappa Naidu was in need of money, he requested him to finance the loan amount, wherein he expressed his inability to finance the amount to T.Chinnappa Naidu and accordingly, the husband of 1st defendant intended to sell the house property for his legal necessity and thereafter, he took the husband of 1st T.Chinnappa Naidu with plaintiff of the suit and he also met 1st defendant in her house, wherein she agreed to sell the suit schedule property and accordingly, he took plaintiff to the house of 1st defendant and plaintiff after inspecting the schedule property agreed to purchase from defendant No.1 and after due negotiations, defendant N.1 and her husband agreed to sell the same in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- and P.W.2 stated that on the date of conclusion of sale talks, plaintiff had paid Rs.10,000/- to T.Chinnappa Naidu and after 8-10 days thereafter plaintiff paid Rs.2,70,000/- to 1st defendant and her husband T.Chinnappa Naidu and defendant No.1 executed sale agreement to plaintiff and she vacated the premises and handed over the possession to plaintiff. However, P.W.2 43 OS. No.2191/2001 admits that he has not signed Ex.P.1 as attesting witness and P.W.2 stated that he was not called to sign the agreement Ex.P.1 as attesting witness. Hence, he has not signed the said agreement .
15. P.W.2 was further cross-examined by counsel for defendant No.2 on 15.12.2014, wherein P.W.2 admits that he has not obtained any licence for doing contract business and he has also not maintained any account in respect of contract provisions. He admits that he has acquainted with plaintiff is existed for last 18 years as plaintiff is also doing contract work and P.W.2 admits that he is also doing work of broker in respect of purchase of sale of houses and P.W.2 admits that he did not gave any money to T.Chinnappa Naidu when he borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- and P.W.2 admits that he did not enquired the husband of 1st defendant about the requirement of Rs.25,000/- by him and P.W.2 stated that he has not lent any loan to T.Chinnappa Naidu nor to any other borrowers and T.Chinnappa Naidu decided to sell the house property as he was in need of Rs.25,000/- and P.W.2 admits that on day that no written documents came to be executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and her husband T.Chinnappa Naidu and husband of 1st defendant did not handed over original documents of title to plaintiff on that day and P.W.1 stated that subsequently in the year 1999, had paid a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- to T.Chinnappa Naidu and on that day, agreement of sale was 44 OS. No.2191/2001 executed , wherein 1st defendant herself had brought the agreement of sale prepared by typing the text and ready for execution and P.W.2 stated that stamp paper of rupees face value of Rs.1,000/- was in the hands of 1st defendant and P.W.2 stated that husband of 1st defendant and some one had signed Ex.P.1 and P.W.2 admits that he did not read over the contents of Ex.P.1 agreement of sale on that day and he has not signed Ex.P.1 on that day and P.W.2 denied that he is deposing false evidence just in order to favour the plaintiff. Hence, on perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.2, wherein though he stated to be present on 29.11.1999 when Ex.P.1 was executed, but P.W.1 stated that he has not signed Ex.P.1 and hence, the testimony of P.W.2 appears to be doubtful, wherein P.W.2 is also contractor and the plaintiff also contractor in business and real estate agent and hence, P.W.2 has deposed for the plaintiff in this suit just to favour the plaintiff and his presence appears to be doubtful when Ex.P.1 was executed between plaintiff and 1st defendant. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 will not in any way helps to the plaintiff in this suit.
16. Defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.1 through affidavit evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and D.W.1 in his chief examination stated that he has purchased the schedule property from the 1st defendant under sale deed dated 21.1.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and his brother S.R.Venkatesh had helped him in purchasing the 45 OS. No.2191/2001 property and D.W.1 claims to be in possession of the house property by virtue of sale deed as defendant No.1 had handed over possession on the date of sale deed and D.W.1 further deposed reiterating the defence filed in the written statement in his chief examination and D.W.1 stated that defendant No.1 has given the title documents include original sale deed dated 19.11.1999 and P.W.1 denied the possession of the plaintiff under Ex.P.1 in respect of first floor premises from 29.11.1999 till 26.2.2000 as per Ex.P.1. )On the contrary, D.W.1 denied the alleged claim of possession by the plaintiff under Ex.P.1 transaction in respect of her premises and D.W.1 also denied the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff from the schedule property on 26.2.2000 and D.W.1 claims to be bonafide purchaser of schedule property purchased under sale deed dated 21/24.1.2000 and D.W.1 also deposed that he was not aware plaintiff the suit O.S.No.1276/2000 filed by the plaintiff till he was served with court notice to be impleaded as defendant NMo.2 in the suit during the year 2001 and he appeared in O.S.No.1276/2000 during the month of June 2001 and submitted no objections for I.A.No.6 filed for impleading and D.W.1 stated that he has been impleaded as 2nd defendant on 1.12.2004, but he which are snot furnished with copy of amended plaint in O.S.No.1276/2000 and on perusal of the evidence deposed by D.W.1, wherein he has deposed by corroborative evidence as pleaded in the written statement 46 OS. No.2191/2001 filed in this suit and D.W.1 also stated that the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit on 15.7.2003 by filing memo on that day and hence, D.W.1 denied the possession of the plaintiff claimed in respect of schedule property under Sec. 53 A of T.P.Act and it is contended that in Ex.P.1 the recitals of possession is wrongly shown and as such, D.W.1 stated that Ex.P.2 is only a money lending transaction drafted in the form of agreement of sale and D.W.1 claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property and he denied the plaintiff's possession over the schedule property and hence, D.W.1 by his affidavit evidence and coupled with documents marked through him from Ex.D.7 to D.20, wherein D.W.1 stated that he has produced the xerox copies of documents given by 1st defendant like copy of sale deed dated 12.9.1962, copy of another sale deed dated 11.8.1964, copy of GPA dated 10.10.1986 and these xerox documents produced by D.W.1 which are xerox copies not admissible for marking . However, defendant No.2 is permitted to produce these documents which are given by 1st defendant for scrutiny of title and possession of the 1st defendant when defendant No.2 entered into sale transaction. Hence, D.W.1 relying upon his evidence and coupled with Ex.D.1 to D.20 had prayed for the dismissal of the suit. D.W.1 after perusal of Ex.D.6 identified the signature of plaintiff herein as attesting witness, who has signed the sale deed held by 1st defendant dated 19.11.1999.
47 OS. No.2191/200117. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff cross examined D.W.1 at length, wherein D.W.1 admits that he has signed his examination-in-chief affidavit after knowing the contents of the same and D.W.1 denied that he has signed affidavit evidence as prepared by his counsel and D.W.1 admits that he had purchased the property under sale deed dated 21.1.2000 measuring 30 X 45 ft., consisting of ground, first and second floor and property conveyed under sale deed consisting of 2 houses on the ground floor , first floor and 2nd floor premises respectively, but D.W.1 unable to give the measurement of kitchen room existed in the first floor premises and he denied that plaintiff is occupying 1st floor premises and he do not know the measurement of the kitchen room as suggested measuring 3 X 8 ft., and he has produced the documents to show that after his purchase of schedule property, the two tenants are occupying the ground floor premises are still continued as tenants and D.W.1 admits that on 26.2.2000 police came to the schedule property at 7 P.M and on that day, there were 3 workers working in the schedule property and he was informed through telephone by T.Chinnappa Naidu. Chinnaswamy Reddy was residing in the first floor premises and along with Chinnaswamy Reddy, two ladies were residing in the first floor and he do not know whether Chinnaswamy Reddy and two ladies/women had cooked and had their food on 26.2.2000 on the alleged date of incident. However, D.W.1 48 OS. No.2191/2001 admits that in the kitchen room, all house hold articles were kept in that room and accordingly, D.W.1 also admits that he has kept house hold articles in the kitchen room and he admits that on 26.2.2000 he was residing in address as shown in the plaint cause title and his address mention in Ex.P.1, complaint is over the address as mentioned in the plaint cause title and he do not remember the dimension when he filed the complaint on 26.2.2000 and D.W.1 denied that as on 21.1.2000, he was not knowing the plaintiff prior to his purchase of the schedule property and D.W.1 denied that that there was doctor by name Smt. Rekha running dispensary in the portion of schedule property and D.W.1 admits that he did not noticed any sign board or any other boards display for identification in the schedule property and D.W.1 admits that about 15 days earlier to sale deed, sale talks were held between him and defendant No.1 and there was agreement to sell executed by him and 1st defendant and he has not tendered any advance amount to the 1st defendant and himself and 1st defendant held sale talks in the presence of a broker byname Subramanya, wherein plaintiff was present at the time of registration of his sale deed and he has no documentary evidence to prove the presence of the plaintiff on the date of sale deed i.e., on 21.1.2000 and D.W.1 admits that he has verified the documents of title prior to obtaining the sale deed from 1st defendant and he has enquired about the schedule property by neighbouring owners of the 49 OS. No.2191/2001 schedule property and he do not know whether 1st defendant and her husband were residing in the first floor when sale negotiations were held and D.W.1 stated that in the ground floor premises, tenants were occupying and in the first floor and 2nd floor, 1st defendant and her husband T.Chinnappa Naidu were residing.
18. In the further cross-examination held on 8.1.2015, wherein D.W.1 was confronted with Ex.P.1. He identified the signature of 1st defendant on Ex.P. 1 marked at Ex.P.1(b) of last page of the suit agreement and D.W.1 denied that when sale negotiations were held on that day, defendant No.2 was not having custody of original sale deed with her and he do not know whether plaintiff had filed objections before corporation authority for change of katha entries. D.W.1 denied that as on the date of sale deed held by him, the agreement of sale Ex.P.1 was inexistence and subsisting. However, D.W.1 stated that he do not know about the sale agreement Ex.P.1 and he came to know about Ex.P.1 about one year ago. D.W.1 stated that he do not know whether the suit file din O.S.No.1276/2000 and he admits that criminal case filed against plaintiff in C.C.No.4670/2000 came to be dismissed and D.W.1 denied that his affidavit evidence filed in this suit containing false information and D.W.1 also denied that he has not produced any satisfactory evidence in support of examination-in-chief. However D.W.1 admits that plaintiff and two women inside 50 OS. No.2191/2001 the schedule property were forcibly ousted by the police officials and D.W.1 denied that knowingly the subsisting agreement of sale, he has purchased the schedule property from 1st defendant and her husband by paying some higher sale consideration amount in order to cheat the plaintiff.
19. Defendant No.2 has examined his brother S.R.Venkatesh as D.W.2 in this case, wherein D.W.2 has filed his evidence in the form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, wherein D.W.2 stated that he has helped his brother in purchase of schedule property and dsw1 has purchased the schedule property from 1st defendant under sale deed dated 21.1.2000 for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and D.W.2 also stated that after purchase of schedule property, his brother was getting repairs done and he was undertaking some woodwork done in the schedule property in February 2000 and on 26.2.2000, the workers informed by his brother over telephone that one Sri. Chinnappa Reddy had brought two ladies and one gas stove, one gas cylinder and one Mixer and some utensils and forcibly entered the house inspite of their protest and one other person in all four persons came and entered the house and abused the workers and when they protested, wherein himself and his brother came and asked them as to why they were entering the premises and asked them to go out and thereafter, he called T.Chinnappa Naidu , husband of 1st defendant, wherein he also came to Police Station and 51 OS. No.2191/2001 told the police that his wife Chittamma had sold the house property and delivered possession to D.W.1 S.R.Prakash and accordingly, police complaint was given and later police came and made enquiry and found that there were strangers and nothing to do with the property and one person by name Chinnaswamy Reddy was arrested and taken to Police Station and the ladies, who were from two different placed were asked to go back by the police. Hence, D.W.2 deposed that defendant No.2 is in possession of the schedule property since the date of his purchase and hence, D.W.2 denied the possession of the plaintiff under Ex.P.1 from 29.11.1999 till 26.2.2000 and D.W.2 also stated that at the time of sale by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.2, the documents of title are given to the custody of his brother by Smt. Chittamma including the original sale deed dated 19.11.1999 executed in her favour and other connected documents including GPA executed in favour of T.Chinnappa Naidu . Hence, plaintiff has produced the said documents and D.W.2 stated that plaintiff has signed as witness on the sale deed held by defendant No.1 dated 19.11.1999. Hence, D.W.2 stated that plaintiff was fully aware of the negotiations for sale of schedule property in favour of his brother as he had come with T.Chinnappa Naidu for the negotiations of sale and plaintiff has not objected for sale in favour of D.W.1 at any point of time and plaintiff has never disclosed existence of sale agreement 52 OS. No.2191/2001 Ex.P.1 in his favour executed by Smt. Chittamma. Hence, D.W.2 deposed his evidence through affidavit filed in support of examination-in-chief and counsel for defendant No.2 further examined D.W.2, wherein D.W.2 stated that he is witness for the sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.2 and he confronted with Ex.D.13 sale deed, wherein D.W.2 identified his signature marked at sl. No.2 of attesting witnesses on Ex.D.13 marked at Ex.D.13(a).
20. The counsel for the plaintiff cross examined D.W.2, wherein D.W.2 admits that he helped his brother (D.W.1) in purchase of schedule property and D.W.2 further admits that he has verified the documents of title in respect of schedule property and he took his brother to the deed writer office and sale deed was registered in respect of schedule property on 24.1.2000 , which was registered before Sub Registrar office, Kengeri and D.W.2 admits that he has not given paper publication prior to purchase of schedule property by defendant No.2 and D.W.2 stated that it was not felt necessary for him to issue any paper publication and tenants occupying ground floor premises have executed rent agreement and also lease agreement in favour of defendant No.2 and D.W.2 denied that no such document came to be executed by the tenant in favour of defendant No.2 and D.W.2 stated that on 26.2.2000 police officials came to the schedule property and made enquiry in respect of the ownership of the schedule property and D.W.2 in his further 53 OS. No.2191/2001 cross-examination also denied the suggestion made to the witness and further D.W.2 admits that he has not verified the original GPA when verified the other title documents and on the contrary, D.W.2 stated that xerox copy of GPA was handed over to defendant No.2 and D.W.2 denied that the husband of 1st defendant had no authority to transact in any manner with 2nd defendant as defendant No.1, who was the owner of schedule property and D.W.2 admits that he has no requisite qualification for scrutiny of title prior to purchase of property by defendant No.2. However witness stated that for that reason, he approached deed writer office for verification of documents and D.W.2 stated that on 26.2.2000 they lodged police complaint in between 4 P.M. to 5 P.M and D.W.2 denied that the first floor portion of schedule property in which one Smt. Rekha was running her clinic as she was medical practioner and rest of the cross- examination directed to D.W.2 is denied by him.
21. The defendant No.2 got examined advocate Sri.K.Vishwanatha as D.W.3 in this case to prove that D.W.3 was tenant occupying the ground floor portion of schedule property under 1st defendant prior to sale of the property in favour of defendant No.2 and on perusal of the evidence of D.W.3, wherein he is deposed that he has occupied ground floor premises belongs to 1st defendant and her husband in the month of June 1998 as tenant and it consisting of first floor and 2nd floor belongs to defendant No.1 and her 54 OS. No.2191/2001 husband and he was tenant in respect of ground floor premises from June 1998 till August/September 2001 and D.W.3 identified the presence of defendant No.2 before the court and stated that he had purchased the schedule property from 1st defendant and her husband and further D.W.3 filed examination-in-chief affidavit and reiterated the oral testimony made before the court in his affidavit evidence and D.W.3 also stated that the 1st defendant and her husband vacated the first floor and 2nd floor premises and delivered possession in favour of 2nd defendant, wherein the 2nd defendant and his family is in occupation of the first floor and 2nd floor premises and except defendant No.2 and his family, no other persons are in occupation of the first floor and 2nd floor.
22. The counsel for plaintiff cross examined D.W.3, wherein D.W.3 admits that he was tenant in the ground floor premises and defendant No.2 informed him about he purchased the schedule property. Hence, he knew 2nd defendant since the year 2000 and D.W.3 admits that he has no personal knowledge about defendant No.2 and D.W.3 admits that he had issued with one receipt by the 1st defendant when he was inducted as tenant and D.W.3 also stated that he has not produced any documents to show that he was tenant under 1st defendant and there is no lease agreement/rent agreement existed between 1st defendant and D.W.3 and D.W.3 stated that the receipt which was given by 55 OS. No.2191/2001 defendant No.1 and her husband that she missed some where and hence, he could not produce any documentary evidence.
23. After scrutiny of the oral evidence and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record by the P.W.1 and 2 and that of D.W.1 to 3, wherein the plaintiff by leading further examination-in-chief has deposed that two attesting witnesses of Ex.P.2 namely, husband of 1st defendant T.Chinnappa Naidu and Ramaswamy attesting witness both have died on 31.10.2007 and on 4.7.2006, but plaintiff has not produced death extract of these two attesting witnesses in support of his affidavit evidence filed on 17.10.2014. On scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1 and considering the evidence of P.W.2 though plaintiff has got marked Ex.P.1 stated to be an agreement of sale, wherein the stamp papers purchased for Ex.P.1 are dated 18.11.1999 much prior to one day earlier of the sale deed held by defendant No.1 dated 19.11.1999 and after perusal of the evidence given by P.W.1, wherein in his evidence, he denied his knowledge regarding purchase of stamp papers on 18.11.1999 and the evidence of P.W.2 appears to be not helpful to the plaintiff and also considering cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 has not given satisfactory evidence before this court as P.W.1 has denied his knowledge about Ex.P.1 and also P.W.1 has not given proper and reasonable answers and even P.W.1 had denied the application filed by him in O.S.No.1276/2000, wherein 56 OS. No.2191/2001 plaintiff had filed I.A.No.2 on 21.7.2000 and obtained back suit agreement and has paid payment of Rs.47,150/- on 25.8.2000, the P.W.1 has denied his signature signed in the order sheet of O.S.No.1276/2000 and also denied that by filing interim application, he sought return of agreement of sale produced in that suit. Hence plaintiff is not fair before the court and he approached in seeking equitable relief of specific performance is not fair and he has not approached the court with clean hands. On the contrary, P.W.1 tried to suppressed the facts in his evidence by considering the date of purchase the stamp papers for Ex.P.1, wherein they are purchased on 18.11.1999 and defendant No.1 purchased the schedule property from its previous owner through her husband, who was GPA holder under sale deed dated 19.11.1999 and plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P.1 as agreement to sell dated 29.11.1999, but if really the plaintiff had an intention to purchase the property from defendant No.1, he ought to have obtained the title deed of 1st defendant when Ex.P.1 was came to be executed along with other connected documents from the custody of 1st defendant. But in this particular case, the plaintiff has not obtained any documents of title from the 1st defendant on the date of Ex.P.1 i.e., on 29.11.1999 and also plaintiff has not produced any set of xerox copies of documents handed over by 1st defendant in this suit. On the contrary, defendant No.2 has produced xerox copies of documents like copies of sale deeds dated 57 OS. No.2191/2001 12.9.1962 and dated 11.8.1964 copy of GPA dated 10.10.1986 executed by H.M.Balakrishna Reddy in favour of husband of 1st defendant T.Chinnappa Naidu and defendant No.2 also produced original sale deed dated 19.11.1999 marked at Ex.D..13 produced by the 1st defendant. P.W.1 denied in h is cross-examination the suggestion made to him that he has signed the sale deed of 1st defendant as attesting witness, but on perusal of Ex.D.13, wherein plaintiff is signatory to the sale deed of 1st defendant dated 19.11.1999 as plaintiff has signed at sl No.1 of the attesting witnesses for the sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant by her husband as GPA holder. As per the terms and conditions of Ex.P.1, wherein it is stipulated with condition of 6 months time for execution of sale deed and also the purchaser, plaintiff under Ex.P.1 is the obligation to pay water and electricity charges, but plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence to show that he has complied the terms and clause of agreement of Ex.P.1, the plaintiff has issued legal notice as per Ex.P.5 contending that though it is dated 3.3.2000, but legal notice sent to defendant No.1 on 29.2.2000 and admittedly Ex.P.5 is not given to 2nd defendant and this fact is admitted by plaintiff. Hence, considering the evidence of D.W.1 to 3 and considering the defence filed by defendant No.2, wherein it is the specific stand taken by 2nd defendant that Ex.P.1 is not document of sale agreement and it is only a document obtained from 1st 58 OS. No.2191/2001 defendant towards loan transaction existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant and after appreciation of the oral evidence placed on record, wherein the plaintiff had filed the suit for bare injunction on 22.2.2000 against 1st defendant only in O.S.No.1276/2000 relying upon Ex.P.1 and subsequently he filed impleading application in I.A.No.6 to implead 2nd defendant on 28.8.2000 and I.A.No.6 was allowed after no objections from the defendant No.2 and accordingly, I.A.No.6 came to be allowed on 1.4.2002 and amendment to the plaint was made by impleading 2nd defendant on 12.4.2002 and it is also fact from the perusal of documents Ex.D.1 to D.6, wherein plaintiff had filed in all 4 interim applications on 28.8.2000 one for seeking amendment to the plaint, another for impleading defendant N.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and I.A.No.5 filed under Sec. 144 of CPC seeking restoration of possession of schedule property and these applications are came to be allowed and defendant No.2 added in that suit and matter was posted for filing of amended plaint, but plaintiff by filing memo on 15.7.2003 got withdrawn the suit O.S.No.1276/2000 knowingly that defendant No.2 is added subsequently as per order on I.A.No.6 dated 28.8.2000, which was allowed on 1.4.2002 and plaintiff has withdrawn the suit knowingly his application filed under Sec. 144 of CPC in I.A.No.5 was allowed and kept for enquiry filed in that suit and as per the contents of Ex.P.1, wherein plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to 1st 59 OS. No.2191/2001 defendant under Ex.P.1 and only meager balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is left to be paid and there was no impediment for the plaintiff to obtain registered sale deed executed through 1st defendant on the date of Ex.P.1, wherein plaintiff had paid 90% of the agreed sale consideration amount, but plaintiff has not obtained original title deed of 1st defendant on the date of execution of Ex.P.1 along with other title deeds of the schedule property and even plaintiff has not given notice to defendant No.2 and whereas Ex.P.5 is given only to defendant No.1 on 3.3.2000. Hence, considering the cross- examination admission of P.W.1, wherein P.W.1 admits that he knew 1st defendant and her husband late T.Chinnappa Naidu since about 20 years ago and as such, the plaintiff has not obtained original title deed of 1st defendant on the date of execution of Ex.P.1 and also not obtained other documents of title from 1st defendant and the stamp papers purchased on 18.11.1999 much before 1st defendant purchased the property and hence, considering all these aspects and circumstances, wherein it is inferred from the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff that the transaction under Ex.P.1 entered between plaintiff and 1st defendant appears to be a loan transaction, wherein plaintiff had financed by giving Rs.2,80,000/- to 1st defendant under Ex.P.1 by obtaining this agreement and plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.2191/2001 on 26.3.2001, wherein the suit summons issued in that suit returned with 60 OS. No.2191/2001 shara that the defendant No.1 and 2 have refused the suit summons issued in O.S. No.2191/2001 and plaintiff has withdrawn the suit O.S.No.1276/2000 by filing memo on 15.7.2003 on the pretext that he has obtained exparte decree in O.S. No.2191/2001 on 18.7.2002 and hence, that suit does not survive for consideration, but plaintiff knowingly and had the knowledge that his application filed in I.A.No.5 under Sec. 144 of CPC for restoration of possession was pending and defendant No.2 appeared by engaging counsel and ready to contest that suit, but plaintiff under risk has closed the matter O.S.No.1276/2000 on 15.7.2003 without reserving his right or leave to file a suit for specific performance and hence, the plaintiff is also signatory to the sale deed Ex.D.7 of 1st defendant dated 19.11.1999 and Ex.D.15 memo filed by the plaintiff's advocate for plaintiff in O.S.No.1276/2000 dated 15.7.2003, wherein the text of the memo reads that plaintiff does not press the above suit. Hence, suit may be dismissed as withdrawn. Though cross-examination of P.W.1 reveals that wherein P.W.1 has not produced any bank statement or passbook to prove his financial ability to pay Rs.2,80,000/-, but defendant No.1 remained exparte in this suit and defendant No.1 has not appeared and denied the receipt of part consideration amount of Rs.2,80,000/- paid under Ex.P.1 and though defendant No.2 counsel has elicited cross-examination on the aspect of financial capacity and P.W.1 has not produced any satisfactory document to prove 61 OS. No.2191/2001 his financial status and also not produced bank account statement and income tax returns, but that part of cross- examination cannot be made ,wherein defendant No.1 has not appeared and denied the receipt of sale amount paid by the plaintiff under Ex.P.1 and defendant No.2, who subsequent purchaser cannot cross examined regarding passing of consideration to 1st defendant under Ex.P.1.
24. So far as plaintiff's claim of possession in respect of schedule property, wherein P.W.1 has claimed his possession in respect of first floor premises under Sec. 53A of T.P.Act under part performance of contract under Ex.P.1, but considering the document and oral evidence placed on record, wherein plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.9 regarding complaint filed by him before SHO, Banashankari Police Station and as such, regarding incident of dispossession dated 26.2.2000 and he relied upon Ex.P.4, P.8 order sheet and also Ex.P.9 complaint dated 26.2.2000, Ex.P.10 charge sheet copy, Ex.P.11 complaint of defendant No.2 dated 26.2.2000, Ex.P.12 charge sheet ( Police challan_ filed in Cr.No.127/2000 in C.C.No.4370/2000 , Ex.P.13 and P.14 are the deposition copies of defendant No.2 herein, who was complainant and I.O , P.S.I. The further statement of witness P.Manjula is at Ex.P.15 and further statement of complainant defendant No.2 as dated 26.2.2000 at Ex.P.16, Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 details regarding seizure of property and mahazar Ex.P.18,wherein plaintiff has relied upon these 62 OS. No.2191/2001 documents to prove his possession from 29.11.1999 till 26.2.2000 in respect of first floor premises , but considering the evidence of D.W.1 to 3 , wherein considering these police complaints and other documents, wherein the complaint filed by plaintiff at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.9 was not put to any action by the concerned Police Station and whereas the complaint given by defendant No.2 was registered with FIR and charge sheet filed against plaintiff as accused No.1 and 3 other accused and plaintiff got released the house hold articles like Ex.P.9 gas cylinder, Mixer and utensils including motorbike from 2nd ACMM court as seized under P.F in Cr.No.127/2000 and Chinnaswamy Reddy was arrested and detained in custody and whereas though acquittal judgment is produced in this case, but the complaint filed by the plaintiff which was not taken any cognizance by the police, whereas the complaint filed by defendant No.2 was registered against plaintiff and other 3 accused. Hence, plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his possession under Sec. 53(A) of T.P.Act and question of dispossession of plaintiff does not arises and on the contrary, it appears that plaintiff along with Chinnaswamy Reddy and two women Rathna and Manjula attempted to trespass into the first floor premises on 26.2.2000 and the workers of defendant No.2 working on that day protested the act of trespass and accordingly, defendant No.2 filed complaint and plaintiff tried as accused No.1 Chinnaswamy Reddy and accused No.2 and other two 63 OS. No.2191/2001 women were expounding in the charge sheet and criminal case was ordered to be split up against Rathna and Manjula, who was arrayed as accused No.2 and 3 in C.C.No.3370/2000. Hence, plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his possession under Sec. 53 of T.P.Act and in view of evidence placed on record, I am of the firm opinion that Ex.P.1 is in respect of loan transaction existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant and Ex.P.1 is not an agreement to sell in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, I hold that the documents executed by 1st defendant dated 29.11.1999 relied by the plaintiff is not in real sense an agreement to sell and on the contrary, the said document Ex.P.1 produced by the plaintiff is a document obtained by the plaintiff got executed through 1st defendant for the security in respect of advancing an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- to 1st defendant and as such, the contention of the defendant No.2 alleged in his written statement that the transaction Ex.P.1 existed between plaintiff and 1st defendant is a loan transaction and in view of evidence placed on record, it is having probability and also proximate to infer to hold that Ex.P.1 is a document obtained by the plaintiff as security for the loan amount advanced to 1st defendant, wherein plaintiff did not enforced the said document in real sense as the said document is an agreement to sell and though plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction in O.S.No.1276/2000 and subsequently got impleaded 2nd defendant as per order on I.A.No.6 on 64 OS. No.2191/2001 28.8.2000 and I.A.No.6 was allowed on 1.4.2002, but plaintiff got dismissed the suit without providing any opportunity to defendant No.2 to contest that suit after his impleading in O.S.No.1276/2000 as per order on I.A.No.6 even plaintiff's application filed in I.A.No.6 under Sec. 144 of CPC for restoration of possession was not enquired into and said application also stands dismissed in view of the dismissal of the suit. Hence, considering the oral and documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the plaintiff though relied upon documents Ex.P.1 alleged to be agreement to sell, but in reality, the said document is existed as out come of loan transaction between plaintiff and 1st defendant. Hence, plaintiff failed to prove that Ex.P.1 is real sense a sale agreement in respect of schedule property and also failed to prove his possession under part performance of contract and once the document Ex.P.1 is held to be a out come of loan transaction. Hence, question of readiness and willingness as required under Sec. 16(c) of Specific Relief Act does not arises and hence plaintiff failed to prove Issue No.1 to 4 as against defendants. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in partly in affirmative and partly in negative and Issue No.2 to 4 are in negative.
25. Issue No.5: The 2nd defendant has purchased the schedule property under sale deed dated 21/24.1.2000 executed by 1st defendant for valuable consideration for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and plaintiff has not issued legal 65 OS. No.2191/2001 notice to 2nd defendant and also plaintiff got amended the suit by impleading defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1276/2000 by filing I.A.No.6 on 28.8.2000 and defendant No.2 has impleaded in O.S.No.1276/2000 by filing I.A.No.6 on 28.8.2000 and defendant No.2 has impleaded in O.S.No.1276/2000 by order dated 1.4.2002 and 12.4.2002 as defendant No.2 submitted no objections to I.A.No.6, but plaintiff got dismissed the suit on 15.7.2003 without providing any opportunity to defendant No.2 to contest the suit in O.S.No.1276/2000 though that suit was subsequently converted into specific performance suit, wherein plaintiff had already paid court fee for the relief of specific performance in that suit and it is the specific case of the defendant No.2 that plaintiff had obtained false shara in respect of service of suit summons on defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.2191/2001 on 18.1.2001 and defendant has filed M.C No.266/2003 for setting aside exparte judgment and decree and RFA filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed and accordingly, civil miscellaneous case filed by the 2nd defendant was also came to be dismissed. Hence, considering the evidence of D.W.1 and 2, wherein defendant No.2 proved that he is bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property from 1st defendant without notice of the alleged agreement of sale Ex.P.1 existed in favour of plaintiff dated 29.11.1999. On the contrary, defendant No.2 by leading his evidence and that of his brother D.W.2 and also a tenant, who was occupying ground floor premises namely D.W.2 under 1st defendant 66 OS. No.2191/2001 from 1998 to 2001, wherein the defendant No.2 has obtained the original sale deed of 1st defendant dated 19.11.1999 and also obtained set of xerox copies of title deeds from 1st defendant and defendant No.1 has produced the sale deed of 1st defendant and other xerox copies of title deeds in this suit and hence, defendant No.2 has purchased the schedule property from 1st defendant under good faith as bonafide purchaser without having knowledge of suit agreement dated 29.11.1999. Hence, the defence set up by the 2nd defendant invoking Sec. 19(b) of Specific Relief Act deserves to be upheld in view of is defence and oral evidence and also documentary evidence placed on record by the 2nd defendant. Hence, defendant No.2 has established his defence as contended in his written statement and accordingly, I hold that 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser of schedule property purchased under sale deed dated 21/24.1.2001 as per Ex.D.13 produced in this case. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is proved by the 2nd defendant against plaintiff and Issue No.5 is answered in affirmative.
26. Issue No.6: The burden of proving Issue no.6 on defendant No.2, wherein 2nd defendant has taken specific contention in his written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of contract is clearly barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, wherein the plaintiff, who had filed a suit in O.S.No.1276/2000 against 1st initially for permanent 67 OS. No.2191/2001 injunction and subsequently got impleaded 2nd defendant by filing I.A.No.6 and 2nd defendant ordered to be impleaded in that suit as I.A.No.6 came to be allowed on 1.4.2002 and 2nd defendant impleaded as necessary party and also plaintiff got amended the pleadings by filing I.A.No.4 and also plaintiff has paid necessary court fee converting the injunction suit into specific performance suit and plaintiff had with drawn the suit by filing memo on 15.7.2003 filed by him in O.S.No.1276/2000 and hence, plaintiff has suppressed the material facts of filing specific performance suit in O.S. No. 2191/2001 to the court, where injunction suit was pending and got dismissed the suit without reserving any right and as such, the plaintiff is estopped and barred from filing specific performance suit and it is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. The counsel for the plaintiff in support of this contention raised in respect of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC has placed reliance upon four decisions reported in AIR 1993 SC 1757, another decision reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 2942 P & H and AIR 1997 P & H 136, and AIR 2005 kar 70 Head Note "B", wherein counsel for the plaintiff in his arguments contended that the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit by filing memo on 15.7.2003 and the plaintiff in his memo filed in that suit reported that as on 15.7.2003, the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.2191/2001 was already came to be decreed and accordingly, plaintiff had filed memo on 15.7.2003 informing the court regarding passing of decree in specific performance 68 OS. No.2191/2001 suit and got withdrawn the suit and hence, question of seeking any leave of the court for dismissal of the suit does not arises and on the contrary, the suit filed by the plaintiff as per Art.54 of Limitation Act is well within 3 years from the date of issuance of legal notice Ex.P.5 and suit is filed within 3 years after issuance of Ex.P.5 and hence, counsel for the plaintiff relying upon the ratio under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC contended that the suit is not barred under the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.
27. The learned counsel appearing for 2nd defendant in his arguments contended that the plaintiff had got withdrawn the suit on 15.7.2003 without disclosing the fact of filing of separate suit for specific performance in O.S. No.2191/2001 and plaintiff had filing memo on 15.7.2003 got dismissed the suit, wherein court accepted the memo and dismissed the suit without reserving any liberty or leave to the plaintiff to file separate suit for specific performance of contract and counsel for defendant No.2 has relied upon three decisions reported in AIR 2001 Delhi 2200, AIR 1990 Kar 249, AIR 2004 Bombay 455 and (2013) 1 SCC 625 and he has also relied upon Hon'ble Apex Court decision reported in 2014 SAR (Civil) 808 in the case of Coffee Board Vs. M/S Ramesh Exports P Ltd and counsel for defendant No.2 contended that after impleading of 2nd defendant as per Order on I.A.No.6, plaintiff had withdrawn the suit and he relied upon Ex.D.6 order sheet copy of 69 OS. No.2191/2001 O.S.No.1276/2000 and also relied upon the plaint copy produced at Ex.D.14 and also relied upon Ex.D.1, D.4 and D.6 and contended that the cause of action as averred in the plaint Ex.D.14 in O.S.No.1276/2000 and the cause of action in the present suit in O.S. No.2191/2001 is one and the same and in view of amendment sought for in injunction suit, which was converted into specific performance suit. Hence, counsel for defendant No.2 relying upon above decisions and documents Ex.D.1, D.4 to D.6 and also citations of Hon'ble Apex Court contended that principle of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC squarely applicable to the facts of the case as this suit for specific performance is not maintainable as it is subsequent suit to O.S.No.1276/2000.
28. After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the citations and ratio laid down in the above referred decisions, wherein after perusal of the facts of the case and also by perusal of documentary evidence, wherein plaintiff had filed injunction suit in O.S.No.1276/2000 and 2nd defendant was impleaded on 28.8.2000 and I.A.No.6 was allowed on 1.4.2002 and the stage of the suit was for filing amended plaint and plaintiff got dismissed on 15.7.2003, but as per order sheet Ex. D.6, wherein the court has not granted any leave to the plaintiff while dismissing the suit on1 5.7.2003, but from perusal of documents i.e., Ex.D.4 to D.36, wherein the application filed by the plaintiff I.A.No.6 for impleading 2nd defendant was allowed and I.A.No.4 filed 70 OS. No.2191/2001 for amendment of the pleadings also came to be allowed, wherein suit was converted into specific performance suit and also plaintiff's application filed in I.A.No.5 under Sec. 144 of CPC for seeking restoration of the possession was also allowed and enquiry was to be held on I.A.No.5 filed under Sec. 144 of CPC and plaintiff also paid court fee on the specific performance relief in view of amended claim as per I.A.No.4. But plaintiff had got dismissed the suit without seeking right or liberty to file fresh suit and on perusal of cause of action and after amendment to pleadings in O.S.No.1276/2000, wherein the cause of action averred in the suit filed in O.S.No.1276/2000 is the same cause of action as averred in O.S. No.2191/2001. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the counsel for defendant No.2 in the case of Coffee Board Vs. M/S Ramesh Exports P Ltd (2014 SAR (Civil) 808) , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court under head note "A" to "C" as clearly dealt with Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and in this present case also the cause of action in O.S.No.1276/2000, wherein that suit was converted for specific performance subsequently by amendment to pleadings and as such, the cause of action in that suit and cause of action in this present suit averred and pleaded are one and the same, wherein plaintiff by taking risk knowingly that the judgment and decree obtained by him in O.S. No.2191/2001, which was exparte decree against defendant No.1 and 2 and that judgment and decree was not 71 OS. No.2191/2001 final and knowingly this fact, plaintiff got dismissed the suit by filing memo on 15.7.2003 even after impleading 2nd defendant in that suit and 2nd defendant which are snot given opportunity to contest the said suit. Hence, considering the documentary evidence, wherein 2nd defendant has produced plaint copy as per Ex.D.14 of O.S.No.1276/2000 and also produced certified copy of I.A.No.4 to 6 filed in that suit and also produced Ex.D.6 complete order sheet copy of injunction suit and considering the ratio of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, wherein the plaintiff without reserving any right got dismissed the suit knowingly 2nd defendant was impleaded in that suit on 28.8.2000. Hence the facts and circumstances and in view of documentary evidence, wherein the cause of action and the relief sought for in the previously instituted suit and in the subsequent suit are one and the same and hence, the subsequent suit relied by the plaintiff in O.S. No.2191/2001 is barred under principles of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and this suit filed for specific performance is clearly barred against defendant No.2 in view of provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. Accordingly, Issue No.6 is answered in affirmative.
29. Issue No.7: Since plaintiff has failed to establish that Ex.P.1 is in real sense an agreement to sell as against defendants and this court has already held that Ex.P.1 is a document obtained by the plaintiff from 1st defendant for the existing loan transaction and hence plaintiff also failed to prove his possession from 29.11.1999 till 26.2.2000 under 72 OS. No.2191/2001 part performance of contract as per Ex.P.1 and also failed to prove his dispossession on 26.2.2000 and on the contrary, it is proved by the 2nd defendant that he came in possession of the schedule property i.e., first floor, 2nd floor on 21/24.1.2000 and obtained symbolic possession of ground floor as they were tenants occupying ground floor premises . Hence, plaintiff has not made out any case for specific performance relief and Ex.P.1 is held to be a document for security for loan transaction and hence, this specific performance suit filed against defendant No.1 and 2 is not maintainable in view of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. However, plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P.1 and defendant No.1 remained exparte in this suit and defendant No.1 not denied receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.P.1 and hence, the court has to mould the reliefs while granting relief to the parties as per Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC and instead of dragging the plaintiff to file separate suit against 1st defendant for recovery of the amount paid by the plaintiff to 1st defendant, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff is within 3 years against 1st defendant and hence plaintiff has also paid court fee and as such, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with reasonable rate of interest at 8% p.a from 1st defendant from 29.11.1999 till the date of realization. Hence, with these observations, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance relief against defendants deserves to be dismissed and on the contrary, plaintiff is 73 OS. No.2191/2001 entitled for recovery of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 8% p.a from 1st defendant from the date of Ex.P.1 i.e., from 29.11.1999 till realization by 1st defendant. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.7 partly in affirmative and partly in negative.
30. Issue No.8: In view of my findings arrived and discussed and reasons given on Issue No.1 to 7, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance relief deserves to be dismissed. However, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the amount paid under Ex.P.1 as against defendant No.1 and suit against defendant No.2 for specific performance id deserves to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
OR D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of alleged agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999 is dismissed against defendant No.1 and 2.
However, no order as to costs.
Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,80,000/- with interest at 8% p.a from defendant No.1 from the date of Ex.P.1 till realization of the said amount by defendant No.1.74 OS. No.2191/2001
Accordingly, defendant No.1 is directed to pay the said amount to plaintiff within two months time from the date of drawing a decree in the above suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 28th day of February , 2015.} (S.V.KULKARNI) XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXUERE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Sri. B.Srerama Reddy PW2 Sri. Munireddy.T
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Agreement of sale dated 29.11.1999
executed by defendant No.1 in favour
of plaintiff
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of sale deed executed
by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No2. dated 21.1.2000
Ex.P.3 Encumbrance certificate from
1.4.1998 to 16.7.2000
Ex.P.4 Complaint copy dated 26.2.2000
75 OS. No.2191/2001
Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.6 Unserved postal cover
Ex.P.7 Certificate of posting
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of order sheet in
C.C.No. 4670/2000
Ex.P.9 Office copy of complaint dated
26.2.2000
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of compliant filed by defendant No.2, Ex.P.12 Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.P.13 Certified copy of deposition of defendant No.2, in CC No.4670/2000 dated 3-3-2003 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of deposition of I.O in that CC dated 3-3-2003 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of 161 statement of one T.Muniraju Ex.P.16 Certified copy of further statement of defendant No.2, dated 26-2-2000 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of PF filed in CC No.467/2000 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of Mahazar in C.C.No. 4670 of 2000 dated 27-2-2000 Ex.P.19 Certified copy of 313 statement in CC No.4670/2000 76 OS. No.2191/2001 Ex.P.20 Certified copy of judgment in CC No.467/2000 dated 21-8-2003 Ex.P.21 Office copy of legal notice dated 3-3-
2000
Ex.P.22 Returned RPAD cover with postal A/D
Ex.P.23 Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.1276/2000
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 Sri. S.R .Prakash
D.W.2 Sri. S.R.Venkatesh
D.W.3 Sri. K.Vishwanath
List of documents exhibited for Defendant:-
Ex.D.1 Affidavit dated 20.7.2000 sworn to
along with interim application filed in
O.S. No.1276/2000
Ex.D.2 to D.5 Certified copies of I.A.No. 3 to 5 and I.A.No.6 filed in O.S.No.1276/2000 Ex.D.6 Original sale deed dated 19.11.1999 of defendant No.1.
Ex.D.7 Original sale deed dated 19-11-1999
is respect of defendant No.1,
Ex.D.8 Khata certificate dated 1-6-2007,
Ex.D.9 Khata extract dated 1-6-2007
77 OS. No.2191/2001
Ex.D.10 Encumbrance certificate for the period
from 1-4-1999 to 24-1-2000 issued by
the sub registrar office Kengeri dated
27-1-2007
Ex.D.11 Certificate in the name of defendant
No.1, issued by ARO dated 14-1-2000
Ex.D.12 Tax paid receipt dated 30-12-1999
Ex.D.13 Original sale deed dated 21-1-2000
executed by first defendant in the
name of D.W.1
Ex.D.14 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.No.1276/2000
Ex.D.15 Certified copy of memo dated 15-7-
2003 filed in O.S.No.1276/2000
Ex.D.16 & 17 Certified copies of IA No.1 & 2 filed in O.S.No.1276/2000 Ex.D.18 Certified copy of IA filed U/S 94(e) of CPC dated 29-8-2000 Ex.D.19 Certified copy of application filed U/O 13 Rule 9 of CPC dated 21-7-2000 in O.S.No.1276/2000 Ex.D.20 Copy of caveat petition filed by Sriram Reddy dated 28-2-2000 XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 78 OS. No.2191/2001 79 OS. No.2191/2001