K L Veeranna vs Erappa S/O Chikkaramanaiaka Since Dead ... on 17 September, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K L Veeranna vs Erappa S/O Chikkaramanaiaka Since Dead ... on 17 September, 2010

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

IN '1' HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI.ORE

DATED THIS T}'f E3 1?~'"T' DAY OF SEPTIEEEVIBER  0  

B EFORE

THE 1~§<>N'B.LE MR JUSTICE K;c;oX:§N:3A:22x;:'_1;L'U    

REGULAR SEZCONID A1>;>EAi£g 2ﬁS':s.<;';oF'.2'0':):"%   

BETWEEN

1. KLVEERANNA M   
S/O PATEL IJINGEGOWDA  '  jé 
SINCE) DEAD BY LRS  «  --.  *

1(a) K.V.RAJ'ASI%iE__KAR"AI;$Q V "  Q' .  A
KNOWN AS  'V 
s0N,47  * h    V

R/() K0LALA1+:(:N*rE HOMBL;  K
KORA   V _   
TUMKIJR'1fALiijKa»+i.¢5'72 1«2?'. _ .

1(3) GAl\'§}ADHA_f€2$.'z5§I;'5:§3"« 
KNOWN As _GANGAD_¥1AEGAH
SON_;AG_E: 42'-YEARS *

 A.  R/o--:%.KQLLALKUN*r5:_'%__. -
*;'<:QRA Hgosm, TUMKUR

A  (£33 ASi§AN';"§1A1~VEERAMMA

DAUGHTER, AGE: 49 YEARS,
R/A51' K_OLAl.A KUNTE

 ,_KORA~~ HOBL1 AND TU?»/EUR DIST ...APp1«:LLANi1's

  'iréy SR1 M.S.GOPAL ADV.)



 Sim TALOK,  

AND

1. ERAPPR -i'.::?/ O CHIKKARAMANAIAKA
SENCE DEAF) %%'r' L-RS

DODDAKKA, 3 'HFE, 
DEAD DURINi} APPEAL

LAKSHMAKK 5% OAUGI:~£TEI<. 
SINCE DEAD LY LRs.,  

(1) SHIVAN  7:3/O K4§R1NINGAf5P;K.V""

AGED AB: :1 5 59 YEA'RE3._    AA 

(ii) NAGA£~':A= E. S/O KA;Ri'N-I:NG:Xf'.,__ :  O: " 
AGED A80?  A *  

(iii) BAS£~ i}:.'_é"=;:\E.;'4 Aﬂ."V.S';'O I{}k§IP~IiNVC.APPA.

AGED_.A»B.QuUTALSRXEJARSL ' 

(iv) CI;ivIKE{A1\Ei§i}3_';':'€§:/'£)'4KARI1?€iNGAPPA.
AGED ABOUT' 30 'Y'E3AR_S:4. 

SCHOOf;"£'_EACHER;._G»Q.FJ'T. PRIMARY SCHOOL.

MELKUNTE POST. KASABA HOBLI,

 A T;.V(é;}--- _FiAN{}MAKKAa WIFE

:n§}AA'RAA«i;A;{:fHANRA1AH, SON
RE'SPQN'D,£3'NTS 1 (21) TO (33) ARE MAJORS,

  R/O OO;)OERI., KALLANBELLA HOBLI.
 A SIRA TALUK.

  ._1(C:}°:NARASAMMA DAUGHTER
  V: W/O CHITHAPPA. MAJOR

-Ar

fgﬂwﬂ, 



R/O CHIKKARASANAHALLY
C.N.E)URGA 191081.},
KORATAGERE TALUK.

Md} JAYAMMA DAUGHTER

AGE MAJOR

W/O HANUIVIANTHARAYAP3?A   
R/AT KORATAGERE TOVVN  

1(6) GOWRAMMA, DAUGHTER
AGE MAJOR  
W/O BHEEMARAJ

R/AT BADAGANAHALLY .
KORATAG-ERE 'l'ALUK';-.  _ 

1(1) RATI~INA1\/IMAI)AU€f}HTE'}R._'=,_ '
AGE MAJOR,~'-.__'_'--  r    
W/0 KARIYAPPASSSAAS A j '   
R/AT    
TUMKU_R_TOWN«1.:,_'_ 1' * " 

1 (g) PARVATHAQI-MA, DAUGHTER
AGE    
W/O KAREYAPPA.  " 

R/AT E?»ATAWAD}~ TUi\4KUR TOWN

~  "f¥V.VE"{é>'{JR:§PPA VS'/E) H VASUDEVA RAG

 A--sf}-«I 'AS  S/0 2ND RESPONDENT

303?} ARFQMAJOR OC'-£7? AGRI-C'UIfI'URIS'fS _ ?_ _ ' A R/AT ..H'E;_moD1)ERI. KAIAAMBELLA 'HC)BLI;*SIRA TALUK. ...RESPONDEN'l'S {fay SR1 A V G ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR MAG) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 10Q..__C-PC AGAINST 'I'HP3 JU1')GM.EN'i' AND DECREE ILVXTIEIED 24.09.2005 PASSES}? IN IRA N045/2005 ON THIS .FE1;_EL' "ma PRESEDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COL.T«l?9;5£'_» .:\:'@;;~3v", TUEVEKUR, ALLOWENG THE Ap§>_r::A1. AN1') s§:1f:*1.NG' . THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED7"-._3G.:U'6.'198Q. PASSED IN OS NOJ3/82 ON THE 311;: O)_??"'*£"f>}E'jMUNSI1a'3? '* 7 AND JMFC, SIRA.

THIS APPIESAL COMING, ON 741307}? ADM1.$S1'0N"'fh1S'~-- DAY, K GOVINDARAJULU FOLLOWING: ' V :".i.U13G.?¢i'E;§§'fI" "~ Plaintiff in OS .A'?'~}??1'Pj\%11ant4 in this second appezyle according to their status found in Vsuit'. A the case is listed for admissicm. both c(ms€I1f;;ed for final disposai.

'*f'}'1e suit is filed by the p1ai1"1i;iff seeking .7,V»e11f<);'ceff1e1"1i'. of an agreemem. of 32116 dated 2.7.1977. It (_}., :)}::L1\:12:R:«;L>_., THE: > 'J! is the of the plaintiff that ist. defendant b€'iE}g_ the owner of the piaint sehedtile property has agreement of sale, agreed to seii the pietinti "

pr0pe'1't,y ibr a sum of Rs.6?OQO'/'--"~«aI1d '.i"eee.iived--.A Rs.1000/--. Further Case of defendant. went on post:ponirii:§';..t7he a it iegal notice on as "i"efused". So, there is instituted a suit for this case of the plaintiff. 'J the execution of the T' is not entitled for the while denying the other CQnteni;ieri's.5p1eaded. by the plaintiff. 3rd defendant plaintiff in regard to the specific peri'bnna;nee§f -enntzencl as foilowsz .V «--"The terms and eoiitract of the alleged ~.ag:eement to seii are not binding can this defendant. The said agreement. to seii is " enfereibie in Iaw. Furthei: it is not correct to state that the terms of the agreement to seii are binding upon the third defendant".

(3 Further contend that he is a bonafide pL1reh21se_r for vahie. Suit. is barred by time. So, suit of the not maintainame. S0, pray for dismissal of the suitﬂt. ' also ecmtended by the Syd defe1id2i'ni;.;1t. '4thxat._3fh"e.. suit, is barred by time.

5. Learned trial Judge Vitae fre:1'neVd.__ issiges, permitted parties to lead eigamiiied. EXSP. 1 to 5 are Ii'1'E1.iV':Ei(3d'._ I3.) to 3 are examined and EX.D.1vi.sVmarked;__ ' "

deed under which the 3rd defendantiieiaimxs épdurchased the property. With thie».{:evidenee,' " learne-:1 trial Judge has answered the 'fC:):1}~0V\'\?i,I1g'.' ~iss--:;1_es with the followmg reasons while cieereeiiig7i:he[:=Suit.

' #1 Whether the p1air1t.if;f proves t.hat the v " agreement. to set] in question executed by the first defendant was for legal iieeessity'?

2. Whether time was the esserice of the ermtraei?

3. Is the sale in respect of the schedule property in favour of thethiréii "

defendarat void and not bi11di11_g '~r.i'ipQi1 ' plaintiff? ' I

4. W"nei:her the plaintiff 1e"rove_S aiways been ready ée.izd'= xviiiivrégg. V' to perform his part t;f.,_i.'11e e0iii;rae?;ﬁ?

5. Is the suit 'not mai--n,ffaiﬁa.ble if1'Eavv/jas contended 'b_y"~ihe_'first i'defe1'1'dar3i; in para 12 of his wriiifen S'i_afi'€}}1€I'1{._?.u .

6. Is theisuir. ''t.iji11V_e'.?V' * 'V

7. Are"«iglrie-':V'_betii1§iarie-S 'giveaq in the suit sehedgiie e0r.ree_t? "

{he parties are entitled'?

"lee;rr1ed trial Judge on the , above issu'es"are:

A IS[é'L1eVV'N0.1: A Affirmative In the Negative ._ N12:-._3~: In the Affirmative . "'»i'IssL2--ee:-N64: In the Affirmative Iss1;1=:--: N().5: In the Negative Isstie No.6: In the Negative Issiie No.7: In the Affirmative A ' '=.,_Issue No.8: As per order' below; ~ 7, Aggrieved 3rd defendant. has p'refe1"z'ed appeal in RA 45/O5. Learned Appellate Judge has following points for consideration while appeal.

(1) Whether the p1a1erl£:ff:'aﬁoxkégpepyl 'that defendant" no.1: ltezéeeuted ﬂ_:;~:-.1<_.1_pit_ agreement in l11ps"v.tpfav0ur. V legal] necessity'?

(2) Whether "«1;i:fne'._ur.as llessenee of contract'? L ' V * * {3} \Ni~*.e_t1'_n--er ¥_plain..tiff.. always ready

4..and5;yviVlli~ng tn perfdrvm part of the l £4) l'W1jet1ier--s'a1e of-the suit property in ' ' favotjtppof 3=<¥e?_V'de'fendant by defendants " l and -2'3s"npt15ir1di11g on the plaintiff?

; '{5} '4\\]:v1r"1e't?.t'1e1'.'Vthe..suit is barred by time'? V.{€3"3' the judgment and decree » "Cv._1inder appeal are apposed to law and ' ev1.r,~'ienee on record as contended'? (7_}" .vlA.f~*Wlr1ether p1ai.nt1'ff was; not entitled for 7 any reliefs before the trial court'? AA {8} Whether there are any grounds for ' this court to interfere in the impugned judgment: and decree in this appeal'? 9 {9} What orcier'?

The findings cf the 1ea:med Appe11ate"~.._4f_f'~._ Judge are as under: V t V Point Na. 1: In the negatwixzeé _ Point N032 and 3 : En theipnegatjiipe " V _ A i30int No.4: Does ":10i;__ f ":31,1rV-Ne.' V for.

consideration V 4_ ' ' Point No.5: In t.he.._Vafﬁrmati\{e' _ Point N036 to 8:Ir1"€:h.e affi'rmative Point No.9; As per----finial btde-r '

8. Learned plaintiff while reiterating thelease ceiitends that lst defendant? executed the agreefne'n_t_f haswadmitted the agreement. In v1eW"Q_f"tt11s {:iatefia1._:'ad'fr11ssi0n found in the facts of the ease, "by the ieamed Appeliate Judge on the stamp is; not proper. Why she is"~e{;r_§1r:§'e:1'ting is that there is no such pleading in the'-.tvritteé"" statement. on the subject of dates. 80, any V fi11_('iing".give11 wit.h0'ut' the pleading is not permissible uﬁgier law.

9. Plaintiﬁ' has {zone to know about the acétzion of deferidaitats IE. and i 1;:t they are inteilding t;o":;§e1I'L"~t;1*;»e property. :30. plair1t'ffg=:ot issued 21 legai notiicse; V' legal 11otis::e is refused arid it is :'et'u'1'ned..'uI}.s_er*'had.'-it i;'sg further contended that 'i,1ndet".__. of Limiitation Act, three years 'pe;i=i--od is §ixedo.:"_T1Vj':,;og'h the ' agreement. of sale is 1977,' Waeivderivrai-"id for more money '{s.54~1 fCF~I7_Tvti1V"('3..npL1I'Ch€i.S€ of the stamp paper; of t.h~..~. ii gal notice. There Suit is ﬁled by the plaintzff. the property after the' . refu:Sa'V1:_i'.Voi7 notice addressed to 3rd d€f€I1da1"lu1C.___4 3tVdV"defer;déj;1.ti Cannot plead that he is a bo11:§i;fid.e ptirehaser for iralue. '}f'h_e action of the plaintiff ' '~-.i1'1 "£3.Skii1."1{§ 'me Ist '<f"1'e'fer1dam. to receive the money and in property, the $1,111: being filed, it being ohsputed, the iransacttion has 'so be acoept.e'd., for a,11ow"i.ng the appeal while setting ' : a.s;iLdeui'.'i*.1e orr_1eI' of the ieameci Appellate Judge. ~ Secondly. co'r11:.era_d that in the evidence of PVV1. PW} had admitized t.ha€: as early as 1977, demanded for speciﬁc perforzmarice. V' December 1977 as the date of derfiaude within the period of three s11»o;fi1C1.ebe'V within three years of ti1e""v--_derIian.d'...Tfort'; éyjetciﬁc V performance. So, the su.i.t is b'a:~r%;+::

1 1. Places re1iaI1(:efon '1juI'irig§AAoi".,»the Apex Court in (Am 1997 so 175I,}""L'o- f::3ot1t.e;:q¢iiitthroughout the plaintiff shiouftd péfove reaciiiaess and willingness and that is essegiti-£11. ii:-gfedieiit in the suit for specific perforrngirice' foif1I1c1- the Judgment of the Horrble . in 9. It is not permiseibie under A*¥aw_~t;o' Specifitt perfornaanoe mereiy for the sake of asking or m§e2'ely it is legai. Piaee reliance on the rulirig k "of Vit,h§;-icourt. in CHINNASWAMY Vs PROFULLA (ma K211". 2294) to contend that this Court has 12116}

-diowii the prir1cip}.r:$ to be followed in cases of this nat.i,1re, iI1vit,es the atteniiion of this Court) to paragraph 24 and 26 of the JucIgment,. it is fL1ri,.her stibmitteetthat after the purchase by the 3&5 defendant. defe1;«c:i£i;'2~t'__'_i'~1'£3,3..o has Cuitiveitcd Areczeimlt. trees, 200 sap1in.g3:s:a,.re pfiaénteﬁi a.r1:::1 there is Vast, development the rising rates, eolitision between p}€=.inti.ff jjaiici defendant No.3, litigation atiiis his to be considered by the 7_ea1§,1i;i'ot.1_s=1ny"«.while exercising judicial discretion. SoAi..pi"_ay the orders of the

12. iflotlri; in Kashmir Singh VS.

Ha_niji2iii" singh "x5iI}(1_',.=5£I1'F. [(Appeal) Civil 1036 of 2002 'det:i.de£1_'i:a;fi.ECi{i_iO3.2OO8}9 has laid down the scope of Appeal. Their Lorciships have observed ' . V as foliows:

* "I6. The principles relating to Section I (30, relevant for this case. may be summarized thusr ' An injérerice ojfar:t;from the recitals or Contents ofa document" is a question Q/Lfaet. But" the legal effect of the terms of a document is _a_ question qflaua. Construction of a documentg involving the application of any pFfI1Clpl€l.'Qf.°2V tau}, is also a question of law. Tt'l1e;rev'foije.,.__] when there is misconstruct'ion ofa docurnent ' or wrong application of a principlev--oflCLzo--..ir1.. construing a document.'-'it" 'gives riseiio a-fl question of law.

(ii) The High Court should tievsatisfied thatiihe involves a substantia-lg 'Q'-ll€SiiOI'3 'of. laujfgand not a mere question oi"-law: Agueslion of law having marteurial' bearing "on" the decision of the ;(i;ha't'.lg' a question.

answer to which -aﬁects :'tl1e._i'i5j.h,ts_'_.oj' parties to the suit) wiliioelfa s'u_bsto.ntial'.~'question of law, ==not --eooered"--..by_flany specific pfOL't:3iOFiS__--.Qf'7v law- or .,se;t'tled legal principle errtergingh j'1ron9i"-fl':bindmgxz precedents. and __.:'nvoioe's"1«:;;,a debatable" legal issue. A substanticéilglguestiori Qflaw will also arise in a'--contrafy_situat'io'n.' where the legal position is "clear_{' ..ievither"'~.o"n account of express pfooisions of la.uj~or binding precedents, but the "court bet-out: has decided the matter, neither "ignoring or acting contrary to such. *7leg'al' principle. In the second type of cases, thie«..gVs'uI:stanti.al question of law arises not ' v._L~ecafu.se the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material gqitefstion, violates the settled position oflaw. ll 1 The general rule is that Htgli Court will not tntezffere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (1') the courts below have ignored rr1a£'eri<:l~l__ evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong in']erer1cesjrorn'L"-_ proved facts by applying tf1_e"""la'a2__:_"

erroneously; or {iii} the courts " nape l wrongly cast the burden of proQ,lZ._':"l<Vf1en«. V we refer to 'decislort based _on] noﬂk L"

evidence', it" not only refers'-tolo.l.'caSe3,_ _ where there is a total dearth oj'et2;'de,nce,.:_ '~ but also refers to-.__any lL'.«l"l€?f8V4_vl'l1€_V§ evidence, taken a whole, not reasonably capableV«..voj'VV supporting fgthe ﬁnding' _

13. The substantial quc-stions that arise for con sideration: as' un lzierg {1VrI.W}1evl:her'1-the a:g§peliate.vC_o»tlrt wagjustyied in note reading/corls'ide'ring the ejfecl of refusal of notice' Ex.25%l-.AAdated13.05.1981, as the sale deed "in faooiglr 'cf"'dejendant No.3 is dated 20.054,e41e81?. ' "

ui~Vhethe'z=* integfererlce by the appellate Court _ or'2""ﬂrVieilr1g of the trial Judge on the date of ..vstarrzp«vrVEx.:PI, in para 11 of the Judgment is jL£S4l'§;ffile(i:§§V_t.~ (3,l_* ' Whether Defendant No.3 has proved development' of the land?

In 21 case of this I13;t'urc, the first element to considered by the Court is in regard to the agreeme'n't $6 and whether the agreement is proved? According to the ease of the piainiiff, there is an agreernent,"~._'ii%*1- defendant: has admitted the aggreerriem. admission of the defendant, is sL;f;fieier1t--'Or' "s£v§'_1':1e"-rriore material is required to accept 0r7_rejie'ct"thie_ case piairﬁiff is the first point fer""'~:;0nsiAderai,iQfi:,iA the positive ease of the pi;_a.int.iff:dt.'rieii,._after know about the intended ssie V:hy"- in grid 2, he has addressed a toigrleit' and son but aiso the relies on the subjeetiH"ne'tieeff support that it is refused;'t.he Enad"~eie}rri'oxv1edgement card in which the said ne"tieVe'is' hutihare aiso produced before the ,.4C,Q1"i'rt.. The' Cover eeniains Shara "refused so returned".

cover is Kavaili Erappa, Voimiki by caste, Kailairnbeila Hebli, Sira Taluk. 31""

according to the eause title is airnost the _ 'se;i11e5 except for mentioning the age. 80, while = ..eensidering" the nieeties of the dates on the stamp paper urged by advocate for defendant No.8, the law 0r_1.__the subject of refusal of the notice has to be eeI1sid'e'red.Vhy4 the Court. Section 27 of the General Ctause-si 4' deais with the subject and it reads"éis'*f<3l'}Q.Ws:" V "Section 27: MeaningVK_o'f--_ Service" »b3, ~ "

post:-- Where any [Cezestral Aeijxor Reg;ti1'e.tiQ,n _' made after the e0mmeh,e'ement= '-of 'this Aetm authorises or requires arty deeument to he served by p0st';~..l_whethe'r._': expre'ss'i0n ''serve'' or eitheref the eixpreseieh "give" or "send" or any other expr'essi0;1_Vis.'.t;sed, them, unless a *d1fffE2I'€I'1i""-§f1i.€11ﬁQI} Vappeaifs, the service ;shs1.1iCbeﬁdeenied. t0'_"--be__feffected by pr0per}y'»vezdAdVres'sii1g;*_pre~p;a.yir1g and posting by regist-eijed""p0st§.'j'sa' '--Ieitte=r "Containing the dQe1i_n1'eiit,'*-:;e,r1d.._ " t_in1"es.s_H_ the Contreiry is ptreVedi',~.i:Q have effected at the time at which theietter"wd'u1d' be delivered in the ordinary €15: Pieeerdirig itoithe General Ciauses Act, when "V"thei*e is71"*e,fVi,2A.sjz-:11 andmif there is no evidence to rebut the t'add're'ss..4:giVet':-as Wrong, the service is deemed te be suffieieiigt; it is the settied law on 1899, so the VVL».'e0nttent.ie.r1 of the plaintiff that he had intimated the s._'(:?efendant even before the purchase of the property is

-proved. So, the nieeties of finding the dates without their being a pieading and assessing the evidence on the guise of a prima faeie dates available on the stamp paper urged by learned advocate for deferidant not proper. Learned trial Judges reasoning paras' '.3 ,1"

is apt. So, the action of the 3"' defendant.in'":teftisingdto receive the notice proves that he;'isA"aware of«t}fie.ease=of the plaintiff about the demand for on an agreement. This probabalisevs the 'dease«---.oVf--*the --. L' plaintiff that 3*" defendant is bonafide: ptirehaser for value. In the entire a'.rdg{,in"ient."i'-addressed by the learned me defendant, the impact of the law under General. Clauses Act is not at piaeedd .ii_0r'.}'1as considered the impact of '"s1..1Veh re'fijsa}~.of notice.

16'; 'The second contention of the learned advocate :j'torVrthe V355 defendant. is on the subject of Eimitation. It is een'tended that in the evidence of PW. 1, he has adrnitted '*vt.imt he has demanded for specific performance with lei'- E9 defendant in the year 1977' itself. Though, stich a reading of the evidence is found in the facts of the it is not the case of the 3"? defendant tltiat. V' speciﬁcally contended that inspi_tie"0f tlheiil agreement pleading. perforrnancel'«i_s»"postponteci., made 1»:-1 defendant to sell th'ele:.V"propei'tjg in..'oi:3r::

defendant. The eonc:Eusi.onlv'foi,et1.:dlVlf5j;ﬁ thelCo'urt supra would probabalise that of bonafide purchase, the. pleading the substantial" 'she is pleading the ground: nihvohlabalise that there is no Sp€('.il'i('.l"Sl.uEV:1I1(ilV to the collusion under the provisions lTl6,l'7 and 18 of the Indian AVetl.«_ thelvlhlea of collusion should be pleaded Awi.1":h {till:'pa1't.iie,Li'iars. No such particulars are found in pa1'a.grap'h the written statement quoted earlier. So, :"i'hesLsubn'iission that there. is a collusion asserted by the advocate for the 31*-3 defendant is liable te be t V" -~;"v:=:je(:'::ed.

17'. The next submission of the learned advoeate is that he places reliance on a rulings on this CHINNASWAMY Vs PROFULLA {ILR 1992 "

also the ruiing of the Hon.'b1e-iﬁpex' it VAIDYANADAM vs VAIRAVAN concerned, here in the 1311?

defendant knowing f1V1iI~yx'di3'1V11'C'h:'=1~'3€3 31'? property. He takes the in the notice there is a under Section 53{i?3d of ijrioperty Act. For better app1'ec;1idationi;"itjs e;Xtract.;ed, . * u .c1iefnt."'is""eistit1ed to protect his possessdlovn under 'section 53A of the Transfer .of prop7erty'Act.. "The W of you is warned not dAeXeeut.e"~ra.t__1y« sale deed in favour of any peé%sof1A~;eXcept my eiient".

of Section 53[A) comes to the aid of thed'}31aint:iff:rat:I'1er than to the aid of 3"-1 defendant. So, it _"tiaer_'ru1i'11.gs cited are not attract.ed in the facts of the ca.se." So, the submission of the arslvoeatie for 3*"

P_..*' ,.

defendant: that the piaintiff has failed to pr0Ve__.__the readiness and willingness, suit is barred by t.=1~r_:§e_"'~afeA also rejected.

The last. submission is that f4ft:er' the"'p{i1_*eha.seAV of it "= the property, improvementts are effected. 'ianid_Ate'Caiii1t.' pianted. It is settled 1aw"th"a_t W1"tAh()'u*; :1 party is not entitied fox: the relief is to be granted, it should n0'ti_fii§d» -"other side and the other side shQu1d;h'zi've':: thereby, if this s1:,ébmissi{r3Vn is'1.4ae.eep1ted ittmamounts to vioiation of the printjpies of h.iat:ii*21iI"'jtistiee, the basic Concept of law f;0'L'«H_Ci tfié' C.ivi1."Pre:ced'ure Code. "E_'herei'i)r.e_,._t.ez,1i the grotmds urged by the 3"-1 éireetnsxxtered, the Judgment of the Appeilate CO=.ii't is."v's:t)_}§p<3sed to Iaw, mfzjustified, substantial ',_questioVn;-;~: are emswered in favour of piaintiiff. So, the "W'C()_z,1'1*'i_1 holds that the agreement is proved, there being a r"L..._,,,,.

t.raI1sa.(:i:ion by£3¥<'1 defendarit knowing fully well (if the tra'nsaCi.ion with the piaintiff, the approach-ji"o:f"gi:f}1§~:

Iearned i\/Iunsiff in decreeing éihe suit is pro-gijér, V' appeal is allowed with costs i,hrQ-u'gi't--0L1t~'_4 time is granted to defendant execute the sale daed. JLid--gfr;.ent i:}ae"

Court of the Munsiff alga JD.i'FC;V,_:"Sii*a._ da£edi30.i05. 1989 is upheid.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court