Bangalore District Court
D.Jayanna vs L.Yellappa on 5 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 5th June 2018
PRESENT
Smt.M.PANCHAKSHARI, M.Com., LL.B.
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge.
O.S.No.7957/2011
Plaintiff: D.Jayanna,
S/o G.H.Doddaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at J-59, Balimatt Road,
Cottonpet, Bangalore - 53.
[By Sri.K.R.N., Advocate]
/VS/
Defendants: 1. L.Yellappa,
S/o Late G.Nagappa,
Aged about 51 years,
2.Sriramulu.N.
S/o Late G.Nagappa,
Aged about 46 years,
3. Venkatesh.N.
S/o Late G.Nagappa,
Aged about 40 years,
4. Srinivasan,
S/o Late G.Nagappa,
Aged about 39 years,
2 OS.No.7957/2011
All are r/o No.794, 76th A Cross,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 10.
5. N.Srinivas,
S/o Late Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 50 years,
6. Smt.S.Shyamala,
W/o N.Srinivas,
Aged about 45 years,
Both are r/at No.6/129,
7th Cross, 6th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore -10.
[Sri.R.N.S., Adv.for D1 to 4 &
Sri.KRH., Adv. for D5 & 6]
Date of institution of 10.11.2011
suit
Nature of the suit Specific performance & permanent
(Suit on pronote, suit injunction
for declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.
Date of the 11.07.2016
commencement of
recording of the
evidence.
Date on which the 05.06.2018
Judgment was
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
Total duration: 06 06 25
(M.PANCHAKSHARI)
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
3 OS.No.7957/2011
JUDGMENT
The suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute absolute sale deed in his favour as per agreement of sale dtd.31.3.2011 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents, supporters, henchmen or any other person under them from interfering in to plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs.
2. The brief and relevant facts as alleged in the plaint are as follows:
It is the contention of the plaintiff the originally the suit schedule property measuring east-west 30 feet and north- south 40 feet was allotted to one G.Nagappa who is the father of defendant No.1 to 4 by BDA. BDA has executed lese sale deed dd. 17.8.1968 and subsequently on 15.11.1968 issued possession certificate and handed over physical possession to him. He developed residential house in a residential RCC roof house. Said Nagappa died intestate leaving behind his wife Nagamma the defendants and four daughters namely Jayamma, Saraswathamma, Bhuvaneshwari. Nagaveni to succeed his estate. The BDA had executed an absolute sale deed in favour Smt. Nagamma wife of G.Nagappa on 20.10.2010 and she had mutated revenue documents in her name. One of the sister of defendants Smt.Saraswathamma 4 OS.No.7957/2011 died about 5 years ago. On 4.2.2011, mother of the defendant, and Smt.Jayamma, Bhuvaneshwari, Nagaveni the sisters of the defendants executed release deed in favour of the defendants in respect of registered release deed. It is further contended that plaintiff agreed to purchase 6.050 sq. feet the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs.72,60,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance as on the date of agreement of sale. Defendants sought 3 months time to execute the sale deed for change of katha in their names. It is further contended that plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendants were dodging the plaintiff by giving one of the other reason. Later on 30.10.2011 plaintiff came to know that the defendants have entered in to another registered agreement of sale with 3rd parties. Hence the suit.
3. Defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement denying the plaint averments.
In the written statement defendants 1 to 4 have admitted allotment of site to Nagappa and acquiring of the suit schedule property by their mother. They have also admitted that the execution of agreement of sale and about the receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that as per the terms of the agreement of sale plaintiff has failed to pay the balance consideration amount within stipulated period and 5 OS.No.7957/2011 committed breach of contract. Though the defendants have kept the papers ready, plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and went upon avoiding to pay the balance sale consideration amount. It is further contended that defendants have issued legal notice on 6.7.2011 calling upon the plaintiff to collect 50% of earnest money within a week from the date of service of notice, failing which entire earnest money stands forfeited as they have cancelled the agreement of sale dtd.31.3.2011. It is further contended that the defendants were in need of money they agreed to sell the suit schedule property to defendant No.5 and executed registered agreement of sale dtd.29.9.2011. Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. It is further contended that defendants are ready to refund 50% of the earnest money ie., Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement of sale. On the above grounds prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. In the written statement the defendant No.5 & 6 have denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff on 10.11.2011 under took before this court to deposit Rs.31,60,000/- in the court and also to produce the loan approval of Rs.40 Lakhs to cover entire sale consideration amount of Rs..71,60,000/- before 25.11.2011 and accordingly this court issued temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property. But 6 OS.No.7957/2011 plaintiff has not complied the same and not deposited the amount as per his undertaking. Since the exparte order was not complied said order dtd. 10.11.2011 came to be cancelled. It is further contended that as there was no prohibitory order against defendant no.1 to 4 they have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 & 6 as per registered sale deed dtd.19.4.2-13 and delivered vacant possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the same day. As such the doctrine of lispendens is not applicable to the defendants Plaintiff has not placed any material processing the loan with any of the banks as on the date of filing of the suit or as submitted a the time of grant of temporary injunction. On the above grounds prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is and was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
2.Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?
3. Whether the defendants 5 & 6 proves that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract as prayed?7 OS.No.7957/2011
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed?
6. What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff got examined himself and one witness as PW1 & 2, got marked Ex.P1 to P7 and closed his side. Defendant No.4 & 5 got themselves examined as DW1 & 2, got marked Ex.D1 to D12 and closed their sides.
7. Heard the arguments on plaintiff and defendants. Perused the materials placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : Does not arise for consideration
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : As per final order,
For the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of specific performance of contract. Suit agreement is dated 31.3.2011. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belongs to father of the defendant Mr.G.Nagappa. BDA had executed the lease deed dd. 17.6.1968 and issued possession certificate by handing over the physical possession of the suit schedule site infavour of Nagappa. The said Nagappa died intestate on 28.2.1985 8 OS.No.7957/2011 leaving behind his wife Nagamma, defendants and four daughters. BDA had executed absolute sale deed in favour of Smt.Nagamma on 20.10.2010. It is also contention of the plaintiff that defendants were badly in need of money and approached him to alienate the suit schedule property, plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property at a price of Rs.6050/- per square feet totally measuring 72,60,000/-. He had paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also his contention that defendants assured that in accordance with release deed katha needs to be mutated and on mutation of katha taken place they will execute the registered sale deed. He was continuously approaching the defendants seeking for katha document so as to comply and get the sale deed in his favour. Defendants went on dodging the plaintiff by giving one or other reason and on 30.10.2011 plaintiff had approached the defendants they have vehemently answered and stated that they do have better offer from the real estate agents, they will sell away the property to the 3rd parties.
10. Defendants 5 & 6 being subsequent purchasers they were subsequently impleaded. This suit having filed against the defendants No.1 to 4 who being the children of deceased Nagappa they have appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. They admit the execution of the agreement of sale dtd.
9 OS.No.7957/201131.3.2011. They have also admitted that after the death of their father their mother having succeeded over the property. Defendant No.1 to 4 had became the owners of the property on the basis of the release deed executed by their mother and sisters. It is their contention that they were badly in need of money so they approached the plaintiff and plaintiff having expressed his intention to purchase the suit schedule property for a consideration amount of Rs.72,60,000/- they have agreed to sell and plaintiff had agreed to pay earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining balance amount was agreed to be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of execution of agreement of sale. It is also their contention that as per terms and conditions, plaintiff has failed to pay the balance sale consideration amount and committed breach of contract and plaintiff is not willing to perform his part of contract and inspite of defendants having kept the documents ready as per agreement and they having informed the plaintiff with regard to the said fact, plaintiff has failed to come forward to pay balance sale consideration amount and get the sale deed registered. So defendants got issued legal notice dtd. 6.7.2011 on account of delaying attitude of the plaintiff calling upon him to collect 50% of the earnest money within a week from the dateof service of legal notice, failing which entire earnest amount stands forfeited, as defendants have cancelled the agreement of sale dd. 31.3.2011. So from the very pleadings of the parties it can be very much made out that there is 10 OS.No.7957/2011 agreement of sale dtd.31.3.2011 it is executed by defendant No.1 to 4 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and it is for the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered within a period of 3 months. Defendants very contention is that though they have informed the plaintiff with regard to the change of katha and also having informed to collect the property documents, so as to get the sale deed registered it is the plaintiff who had failed to comply and he has not made out his ready and willness to perform his part of contract, so defendants themselves have issued legal notice calling upon the plaintiff to collect 50% of the money within a week and in default said earnest money will be forfeited. This suit came to be filed on 10.11.2011 whereby agreement of sale is dtd.31.3.2011 as per the condition of the agreement plaintiff was to get the sale deed executed within a period of 3 months. As plaintiff had failed to comply, defendants had issued legal notice dtd. 6.7.2011 to receive back 50% earnest money and also informed cancellation of the agreement of sale. Inspite of issuance of legal notice on 6.7.2011, plaintiff having not come forward to get the sale deed registered, defendants 1 to 4 had not taken specific contention that plaintiff has failed to make out his readiness and wiliness to perform his part of contract within stipulated period.
11. The suit schedule property having sold in favour of defendant No.5 & 6, on their appearance they have filed 11 OS.No.7957/2011 written statement wherein they have contended that plaintiff on 10.11.2011 undertook before court to deposit a sum of Rs.31,60,000/- and produce loan approval for Rs.40 Lakhs to cover the entire sale consideration of Rs.71,60,000/- before 25.11.2011. On the said condition court had passed an order for issue of exparte temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till next date of hearing. Inspite of undertaking given by the plaintiff he did not complied the orders of the court by depositing a sum of Rs.31,60,000/- and also produce the loan sanction letter to the extent of Rs.40 Lakhs. So in view of non-complying with exparte order of temporary injunction same was cancelled as per order dtd. 10.11.2011. Further plaintiff did not make any efforts to restore the interim orders. Since there was no prohibitory order on defendant No.1 to 4 from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd parties, they have sold the property in favour of defendants 5 & 6 as per registered sale deed dtd. 19.4.2013. By means of sale deed vacant possession of the suit schedule property was also handed in their favour. Further it is their contention that plaintiff has not notified regarding pendency of the suit at any point of time as such doctrine of lispendence is not applicable to them. It is also their contention that plaintiff was not having any funds to deposit the balance earnest money as per his undertaking and even he has not produced any loan documents so as to make his willingness to purchase the suit schedule property.
12 OS.No.7957/201112. Plaintiff in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1 and in support of his oral evidence he has produced the documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to P7. He had also opted to examine one attesting witness to the agreement of sale as per PW.2. As there is no dispute with regard to the execution of agreement of sale and part consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- having paid, only fact that plaintiff has to prove is whether he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On perusal of the order sheet it makes out that as per order dtd. 10.11.2011 at the time of passing an exparte order of temporary injunction on IA.No.1, it makes out plaintiff had under taken to deposit a sum of Rs.31,60,000/- and produce loan approval letter from banks for having sanctioned loan of Rs.40 Lakhs to the plaintiff so as to meet the balance consideration amount of Rs.71,60,000/- before 25.11.2011. It is specifically noted in the exparte order that the order of temporary injunction will stands cancelled in case plaintiff failed to comply the undertaking given through his counsel in depositing the balance consideration amount and loan sanction letter issued by the bank. On perusal of the order sheet of the subsequent dates makes out that till 7.8.2013 plaintiff had not deposited any amount as per his undertaking. So this makes out on the said day there is no exparte order of temporary injunction operating against the defendants 1 to 4 as there is no compliance by the plaintiff.
13 OS.No.7957/201113. Plaintiff having adduced oral evidence and also having produced documents he had not opted to produce any such documents to make out that he having funds to get the sale deed registered or any loan sanctioned papers for having made arrangement with regard to the availability of funds. In the cross examination PW1 had admitted that defendants 1 to 4 were badly in need of money as such, they decided to sell the suit schedule property. He also admitted that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale he was supposed to get the sale deed registered within 3 months from the date of handing over the documents. He also admitted that as he had failed to get the sale deed registered within stipulated period defendants 1 to 4 were entitled to deduct 50% from the advance amount. As per the contention of the defendants 1 to 4 they have called the plaintiff within a period of 15 to 20 days after execution of the agreement of sale informing that they have kept the documents ready and requested to get the sale deed registered the said suggestion is denied by P.W.1. He having also admitted that he had not issued any notice to defendants 1 to 4 before filing this suit. This further makes out that there is no intimation by he plaintiff to the defendants 1 to 4 with regard to his ready and wiliness in getting the sale deed registered. He had also admitted that he had not deposited the amount till today as per order of the court. So if at all plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, nothing prevented him to comply his undertaking 14 OS.No.7957/2011 which was given before court on 10.11.2011. Even he had not opted to produce any such documents with regard to the availability of funds with him or any documents to make out that he had made arrangement for obtaining the loan in any of the banking authority. So in the circumstances, plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
14. Though plaintiff had examined PW2 who is attesting witness to the document as execution of the document and payment of advance amount having admitted by the defendants 1 to 4, nothing is made out in the cross examination nor in his chief examination with regard to the fact that plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract by keeping the balance sale consideration with him, nor he had made out plaintiff having approached the defendants to collect the property documents and katha document and having requested the defendants 1 to 4 to get the sale deed registered. On the other hand, plaintiff himself had produced the encumbrance certificate which is marked as Ex.P2 whereby it makes out the property was already transferred by means of sale in favour of Nagamma having executed by BDA.
15. Defendant No.4 being examined as DW1 and defendant No.5 is examined as DW2. DW1 having adduced 15 OS.No.7957/2011 oral evidence and produced Ex.D2 notice dtd. 6.7.2011 wherein defendants 1 to 4 had informed that they are ready to deliver the documents in respect of the agreement property and the papers were ready after 15 days of the date of agreement of sale and inspite of approaching several time and requests plaintiff to pay balance amount and register the sale deed he had not come forward to pay the remaining balance amount and get the property registered. So they have also informed that the agreement now being time barred it is presumed to be cancelled and they are ready to pay 50% of the advance amount after deducting 50%. Ex.P3 being katha certificate issued on 2.11.2011 makes out katha as on the date stands in the name of N.Yellappa, N.Sriramalu, N.Venkatesh and Srinviasa.N who are none other than defendants 1 to 4 herein. Ex.P4 being katha extract it also stands in the name of defendants 1 to 4 wherein they had been shown as owners of the property. So the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff itself makes out that katha stands in the name of defendants 1 to 4 and even prior to that they have issued legal notice informing the plaintiff with regard to lapse of time and also informing him to collect 50% of the advance sale consideration amount. Dw1 in his cross examination had stated that katha was mutated in the their name on 4.2.2011. He had denied the suggestion that even as on 29.9.2011 katha stood in their name only as person in enjoyment of the property. But Ex.P4 katha extract makes out 16 OS.No.7957/2011 owners name as N.Yellappa, N.Ramulu, N.Venkatesh and N.Srinivas who are none other than the defendants 1 to 4 in the present suit. So by posing suggestion to DW1 it clearly makes out katha was mutated in the names of defendants 1 to 4 on 4.2.2011 itself. As plaintiff document ie., Ex.P4 makes out that as on the date of issuance of said katha extract on 2.11.2011 entry itself makes out that the katha had already been mutated in the name of defendants 1 to 4. But there is no entry with regard to the date when katha got changed in their names. But the plaintiff document itself makes out that before filing the suit, plaintiff having obtained Ex.P4 document it has come to his notice that the katha had already been changed in the name of defendants 1 to 4. Therefore even till filing the suit and even after as per order of the court plaintiff had not taken any steps to deposit the balance consideration amount nor placed any materials on record to make out that he has sufficient funds to prove his readiness and willingness.
16. The counsel on behalf of the defendants had relied on the decisions reported in
1) 2010(1) SCC 287- A.K.Laksmipathy & others Vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal Lohati and others
2) 2010(1) SCC 512 - Mankaur (dead) By LRs. Vs. Hartarsigh sangha
3) 2007(1) AIR KAR R 219 - Smt.Narasamma Vs. Nirannanilatha Mommen John.
4) ILR 2010 KAR 3325 - K.L.Laxmanan Vs.
Natarajan & others.
17 OS.No.7957/2011
As per the above referred decisions the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In the present suit, plaintiff had not even issued notice to defendants 1 to 4 to make out his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. This decision report ed in 2007(1) AIR KAR.R.219 is aptly applicable to the case on hand whereby even in the present suit it is after defendants issuing notice for cancellation of the agreement, plaintiff has filed the present suit. So in the circumstances, as held in the said decision no relief can be granted as plaintiff had failed to prove his readiness and willingness. In the above referred decision as plaintiff had failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract, trial court had partly decreed the suit by ordering to refund of earnest money deposit of Rs.10,50,000 within 3 months with interest t the rate of 6%pa., Plaintiff has failed to prove his financial ability at the relevant point of time must be proved. Mere desire does not amount to willingness of the performance of contract. Genuine willing has to be proved like any other fact. Hon'ble Apex Court had confirmed the judgment of the trial court and had not interfered with the finding of the trial court with regard to the refund of the advance earnest money with interest.
17. The decision relied on behalf of the defendants reported in (2010)10 SCC 512 sub head (c) & (d) reads as follows:
18 OS.No.7957/2011C. Contract and Specific Relief - Specific performance of contract- readiness and willingness to perform - Burden of proof - Reiterated, plaintiff should not only plead and prove the terms of the agreement, but should also plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract in terms of the contract - Evidence Act, 1872 - S.101- Specific Relief Act, 1963.S.16(c).
D. Contract and Specific Relief - Specific performance of contract - readiness and willingness to perform - Existence and proof of refusal by defendant to perform, held, does not obviate need of plaintiff to aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform - Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c). On perusal of the This decision is also applicable to the facts of the defendants where by it is clearly held burden is on the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness and he has to specifically plead and prove the said fact.
18. As per the decision reported in (2010)1 SCC 287 Sub head (c) it is clearly held that when time is essence of the contract, when time being prime importance part who filed the suit must deposit the balance amount by the date stipulated in the contract of sale. Further it is also held that if seller gives final ultimatum for payment of the balance amount best thing that the purchaser to do is to pay the amount and then agitate the matter for specific performance before court. When purchaser fails to make out his readiness and willingness by 19 OS.No.7957/2011 deposit of such consideration amount, then he is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
19. In the circumstances plaintiff in the present suit had utterly failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The above referred decisions are aptly applicable to the defence taken by the defendants 1 to 4. Plaintiff having failed to prove his readiness and willingness I hold the above issue in the negative.
20. Issue No.2: Plaintiff had sought for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, servants, from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Though plaintiff had sought the relief of permanent injunction nothing is made out in the plaint averments with regard to the handing over the possession of the suit schedule property. Only contention urged by the plaintiff is that when he approached the defendants to get the sale deed executed they told that they have better offer from real estate agents and they will sell away to 3rd parties and later when he verified plaintiff came to know that defendants have entered into another registered agreement with 3rd parties. But there is no evidence either oral or documentary to make out plaintiff having put in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even there is no evidence with regard to the fact any 20 OS.No.7957/2011 act of interference by any of the defendants. Hence plaintiff had failed to prove any act of interference by the defendants. Hence I hold the above issue in the negative.
21. Issue No.3: Though issue No.3 I framed casting the burden on the defendants 5 & 6 to prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property. On perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants 5 & 6 there is no any pleading with regard to the fact that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property. When any of the fact is not specifically pleaded nor that being defence of defendants 5 & 6, they cannot be called upon to prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property. Hence above issue does not arise for consideration.
22. Issue No.4 & 5: Inview of answering issue No.1 & 2 in negative, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction as prayed. In the circumstances, I hold the above two issues in the negative.
23. Issue No.6: Inview of answering issue No.4 in the negative, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract as prayed. But here there is no dispute with regard to the fact that part of the consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- having paid and as per condition of the agreement of sale that the seller being entitled to forfeit 50% of the advance earnest money. Even this fact is admitted 21 OS.No.7957/2011 by PW1 in his cross examination. With regard to the balance Rs.50,000/- it is the contention of the defendants 1 to 4 that they have already deposited the said amount in the court. In the evidence affidavit of DW1, it is clearly stated that they being ready to refund 50% of the money ie., Rs.50,000/- as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. They have filed I.A.no.2 which came to be allowed on 11.2.2014 and they have deposited 50% of t he advance amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of demand draft before court on 7.3.2014. So when such being the case a sum of Rs.50,000/-being 50% of part of sale consideration amount, plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the said amount and he is entitled to with draw the same if found in the court deposit or else defendants 1 to 4 shall pay the same. In the result I pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Plaintiff is entitled for refund of 50% of the advance earnest money amounting to Rs.50,000/- from the defendant No.1 to 4.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer in the open court, computerised, and print out taken by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, this day the 5th June 2018.
(M.PANCHAKSHARI.) XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 22 OS.No.7957/2011 ANNEXURE
1. No.of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s:
PW1 : D.Jayanna PW2 : Lokesh Babu.M.
2. No.of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Agreement of sale dtd.31.3.2006 Ex.P1(1) to (e); Signatures Ex.P1(f) : Sign. of PW2 Ex.P2 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.P3 & 4 : Katha Extracts Ex.P5 : Certified copy of title deed Ex.P6 : News paper Ex.P7 : Sale deed dtd.194.2013
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant/s:
DW1 : Srinivas.N. s/o Nagappa DW2 : Srinivas .N. s/o Narayanaswamy
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendant/s:
Ex.D1 : CC of sale deed executed by defendant Ex.D2 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.D3 & 4: RPAD receipt and Acknowledgement with Sign.
Ex.D5 : Paper publication Ex.D5(a) : Relevant portions Ex.D6 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd.19.4.2013 Ex.D7 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.D8 & 9 : Katha certificate & extract
Ex.D10 : Attested copy of memorandum of deposit of Title deeds of Karnataka Bank. Ex.D11 : Attested copy of sanction order Ex.D12 : Tax paid receipts.
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City.23 OS.No.7957/2011
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment. The operative portion of judgment reads thus:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Plaintiff is entitled for refund of 50% of the advance earnest money amounting to Rs.50,000/- from the defendant No.1 to 4.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVIII Addl.C.C. & S.J., Bangalore