Karnataka High Court
Mulle Gowda C M vs Rame Gowda U K on 25 August, 2011
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE F JLLOWING: ; JUDGMENT
This is defendant's appeal. ~"The~ plaintiff, respondent files a suit for en forcement of an agreement. dated 16.10.1985 stated to have been executed | in' his favour.
2, The cl: aim of the plaintiff is that the defendant purchased the pt "operty in 'question be an extent of 33 guntas in Set No. 29/ P of fudigere Tahak pursuant to a sale deed dated 26, Tf, 1962 and another extent of 20 guntas nis Sy No: 29/8 Porsuant lo a sale deed dated 6.6.1 978. The total extent purchased by the defendant is an extent of] acre 13 guntas.
3. Sulfice it to Say that he entered into an seteement to sell dated 16.10.1985 and defendant nad "executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff respect of the said properties. The total sale 'consideration is a sum of Rs.16. 000/-. The plaintiff is in possession arid in cultivation of the entire extent pursuant Lo the said agreement.
4. On service of suit summons defendants have:
entered appearance and contested the sult claim: He _ admits that he had purchased: the sult. schedule properties on two different dates j.e., 38.71.1962 and 6.6.1978. But however, denies that he'has executed the necessary document in favour of the plaintiff.
o. The jearned. Trial . Judge. having régard to the pleadings has framed "the névessary issues and has recorded: afi nding that he. plaintiff has proved that defendant Ne. I had execiited the agreement to sell in "respect of i acre, iS-guntas on 16.10.1985 and further that 'the defendant No.1 received the eriire sale consideration OF Rs. 16,000/-.
6. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined Himselfas PW1L and one more witness PW2 and Exs.P 1 ~to PIl2 were marked. The defendant examined one to DLS were marked. b é
7. The learned Trial J udge having regard to the evidence has decreed the suit. The learned Appéllate Judge has declined to entertain the appeal or. the ground that the Trial Court has. recorded a finding OF. appreciation of evidence. Hence, this. second a ppeab.~
8. Mr.Sarat Chandra ~ 'Byai, learned counsel appearing for the défendants*.submits that the agreement itself is not proved. In thé. circumstances the question of granting a decree would not arise,
9. T nave perused the jiidgments and decrees passed by both the. Courts below, AO. Both the Courts below have concurrently | found that the defendant has executed the suit agreement. They have also come to a conclusion that the plainitifi "was willing to perform his part of the "con tract. a urther the defendant has received the entire "sale 'consideration, That being a question of fact, the
-. guestion of interfering with the said concurrent findings does not arise as no substantial question of law arises