Karnataka High Court
Ramachandra S/O Kangappa Sangha vs Pandithrao S/O Anandarao Dhule on 26 March, 2012
I •I
Ii
I )
I -- . 'I
ll
)J I
• 1 1
i i
• •I• ;;'t'.i •.'t I t''z] ;.•
• I
HI nrlsr
• ''!d TiTq 41
i-fl •O% fl:'jt'i.i
L IAJI t
%.T 1t( flU S
5,111 (Ia 'T •,
VflL Si
i'... '( 11
a '.i1'. 1\ H' k\ii .5,' liii %ili I. (irITti
'9 Ii J '3 II 1 1
fl!' . 411
' 'fl ' 1: 'X3i I' Ni
I
II 's
4
: t •'
.,..
'S 'I ••i i J .a ' .ai
j
: •. --
:I'j ;'ii' :'
•1
4
. ..I• '
II%
..v ..--•
'. .' i:.I"i I
ti' r
I --
• j 1 I ?-I"S ?I
I I" I. 'Ii
I. U\T
'4
) 1
I p
I
I
)
I (
CtiIi I \PL 'I )
,.! :h' l'Ifl)I I
I) IlSU 11,1111, 'T ,fl
fl
1
i j •(..(. I \II 'N 4-
t,I' )--1LtIjJ ) --a. ti ' I
.),tti.c .1
•ntuil'i\' 1i )aL'
1 )1'4Cj
-. c•
I ()%"II'I('.LI •. j
1
)
•)\ '
!"\X fl11LL (1 H
I I
I •t i
I
1 I 4'
:1. 7 I 1
•.' ;
•. 1, : '
I • • I 7
• I; p 1' • --
'p ''
•l_ "1 p .4 •J T
I.' 1 I 't •1 I
I
' io'di
• C ''
' Ufl •)1if' JT ii s :tJ)
• ''ii ... , 'I: '1"Il:j? 'S
r'iuc •'\
: ir g .1 '' LIt: ltL'dttp 1111
•1 '. L
acjjg7 i
•- !.; 1 1 tu .i' •i p %q Tci' ui
ntawoanr
'•iI' 'Li LI
¼
.1
• a •I liii bt11 t1I )1 T111t! •pTlIar_
I '-ii fl V ..T .11! '1 1 j Oflj flT •
's!
4
a-
agreement dated 29.10.2001. The case of the
respondent-plaintiff was that the appellant herein
agreed to sell the stilt schedule property i.e..
Sy.No.228/P- 1 of Aland measuring 7 acres 5 guntas for
a sale consideration of Ps. two lakhs. A sum of
Ps. 1.90,000/- was paid on the daic of sale agreement
and the balance agreed to be paid at the time of
registration and possession has to delivered at the time
of registration. The appellant executed the sale
agreement as per Ex.P. 1 and acknowledged the payment
of Ps. 1,90.000/- as per Ex.P.2. Thereafter, the
defendant i.e.. the appellant did not execute the sale
deed. Therefore. the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated
21.8.2004 arid it was returned with a sham Th-e1iist'd'.
The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for decree
for specific performance and in the alt en tat ive decree lbr
Rs.1.90,000/- with interest.
11.' •1tiit1 flU v tin 'e lj''j ). 'ti i C
a) i
!c itII'('t't ta.!1 1IlI1t iUr i'i. 1
St 'LI. I ilIt H'
1
t .
r. j. . lilt
\ 3 I •l.ias . 3 I
i'i'. d : •llt 1
a.1 II ' t't . . II I •
T, (1 •1 Hr :
11 ' 1(1 ' 1
''Ct U i.l I
( at( ( (It 1 11' 1 .
11 L Si I rc 1
I I . " ç Ii II 1 ii
1(1 t t tblb C i' a (
if i I' (1 .J( It' I
( . lit i' 1 ii I. I, 1. I); 1
I I •t I $_
I i 3%
t( bi
11 •
II
'jil. .. ••,. .. 'a •
i •1t I nt:I
.
t It•Ia . 7 i •II • Ia •I I Ia" a.
S I I I a' I
6
F
of land in Sy.No.228/P-- 1 situated at Aland for a sum of ?2.OO.000/-?
3. Whether the plaint 1ff to prove that the defendant received an advance of ?1,90,000/- In the presence of two wimesses namely Gudu Sb. Khadar Sab Sarange and Nadeern Sal) S/a. Ismali Sab Rhajuri of Aland?
4. Whether the plaintiff has to prove that the consideration was duly passed to the defendant for a sum of Zl.90000/- and who in turn executed an agreement dated 29.10.2001 respectively?
5. Whether the plaintiff has to prove that. defendant agreed to receive balance consideration of Z10.000/- to execute sale deed at. the costs of the plaintIff?
6. Whether the plaintiff has to prove that. he has demanded the ii 1' •i•1€.,it .1_ 1q $'! '. .1 1!! St 11 I LI 1 I i%jl.)1 I )i 1%IlI.. I,.a! .1! I )I 1" a .) )1 h •1 Ii 1 J a I. IX 111% b a iii' 1ij1 p rj ip I j% j;ji a ;,iai.' ;r I-- ':
1L t S C Jr I I d 1 ULIt ILl 'L I a iii-- '.\',t1' ;I. V. •
--. 1_ fl i :"
I. t C
• I I 1
S
1 Lt'S A& • Ii ' .1
1 I'
!. 1
•.t.... • L
I • •
B
4.
10. Whcthcr the plaintiff to prove he is entitled for a dccree of possession with costs?
1 1. Whether the defendant to prove that the suit of the plaintiff is a money lender doing business of money lending without licence under the Act?
12. Whether the defendant to prove that the suit property is more than 11,00,000/- value per acre even in the year 1994 and land is a fertile land that even a mud or insane person will not agreed to sold his land only for 12 lakhs which is worth more than 110,00,000/-?
13. Whether the defendants to prove that the plaintiff is in the habit ol' taking signature In blank stamped paper and receipt?
14. 'Iiet her the defenclani. to prove that the plaintiff created suit 9 S. by documents by forged his signature purchasing forged stamp paper in the ve name of defendant with the acti support of plaintiffs witnes s namely Gudu Sb. Khadarasab mid Nadeem SI Ismailsab Khajuri?
15. Whether the defendant to prove in the absence of his signature In e the agreement the agreement becom in ablntio. null and void as contended the written statement?
16. Whether the defendant. to l prove the agreement is in non-judicia ble stamp as per of ?50/- is in admissi in the evidence?
17. Whether the defendant. to be prove the alleged agreement cannot s enforceable due to the defendant' family is consisting of brother wile auid Is minor children's as the suit land of only a property belongs to the family defendant?
I0 A.
18. Whether the defendant to is time prove that suit of the plaint 1ff barred?
19. Whet her the defendant in hit by prove that suit of the plaintiff is as the provisions of Limitation Act g the claim is time barred by allowin of pet ition under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC?
20. Whether the defendant to endant prove In the year 1986 the def m the borrowed a loan of ?9,000/- fro erest plaintiff who is charged 60% int ally and it was discharged by paying tot amounting to 27.000/- and plaintiff 4 as issued receipt dated 22.03.199 written contended in Para No.10 of the statement?
to
21. Whether the defendant re are prove after in the year 1994 the 11 action in no any contract or trans dant?
between the plaintiff and defen to
22. Whether the defendant ?25.000/-
prove that he is entitled toy ) of Cit from the plaintiff U/Sec.35(4 l gain and as the suit is one for wrongfu filed by false and vexatious suit plaintiff within his knowledge?
are
23. What reliefs the parties entitled?
24. What decree or order?
d issue Nos. 1. 2. 37. The trial Court has answere d 8 in the aff inn ati ve , Iss ue Nos. 4, 7, 11 to 15, 18 to an Nos. 5. 6. 9. 10 and 17 22 in the negative and issue Issue No.16 dIrecting the partly in the alflnnative awl int iff to pa y the pe na lty and consequently has pla appellant-defendant to decreed the suit directing the th interest at 6% p.a. pay a sum of Rs. 1.90.000/- wi pdllaiit-dt'fetidaiit has
8. Aggrieved by that, the ap flied this appeal.
L--
ii U' Ii '1 1' 1 (1; l( 9 l't i I fit'1 'tIll ii I (I J 1 l.i (.11' 1 1 1 'i ,i1t IVP •l i1 t ii' 11 ii PU2fl( I I' i•la' h_ .i c'--' '1 '' ' c: I .• 'it11 :. .' lii •• j .
7 , 1 'ltitur -iI1 lint'' --I IL)' Ill' I iii'' ' 1 I TI aL ) i I I •• ''1( '"'rt i'.t' r : t .tj( a.l a •)j 1.liit'L U: it %') a fl tl 11 'It titlital a j 111(1 - bit 1 ' (Lj C Mifl • J% 1[i ii 11 r its )(' tiflt) as jini JIl1lii' 'I 'ii ii' (It' iiii liii ' ! -- £ 'i1 3 tItli ii' '. t ' "l's .: ' I • II_ 1 hut i. I I '. (I a 4 ' i 1' i. 'Ii " ii- a-I ' a t•. '. ' £ •lJj. I ,( •1 •'i.L '''.t -- '• 11.11 ' a ' a a 1. T-- j.'i?. 'it. -.al1• • 'I.. • a • ' 'C a ii 'P L t: • . a •I I t i • • - a ia I j I • I I - I ? 'J r .,;. a) a '. .t 1 l 1 ;,f,; r:.;J a. a ' r $ 1 • (1)I; _.t. -- ...l'c. •-- ! -- .• •'' 4 ( r. ;' I C i'l 4 OQi) )' SI,, '. , lr- •• -.31 i.a"Jj t. • !41 .-' ;i i..31 •.L.? I s 7 cN ; ; a' "i fl.ifl& b r' --- ; ' I! ] ' ahaleP 9 flb'L) '!I1fJ)u11 . •L •-'1-' :- )ijj ' I it fl) I4Is IPT' ,JJI1ITIIjLI )tiL j (Id' .1. I'U"P IITMU)-)M • I a .,oj 1efl 1 J Ti 3 J3( it 1 w jxldi' atj )I4 ) iflfl%U E T I )pUOds u U p 11 01 ' if ' (ji. Tj .-. )Ui'fl.La p -1a1'ld .)4 )fl.)(I Li uciiq.)cq) •fl tOOt MW tJ •LIj I .,vfltla)' paprq flit)) AU '4 ht'$W' {t1' %11T 10 I s ecthr 'a1c tltcd lii n-i; Ii pitt uhf 'hi -LI ''ut tot dLT(.t flu ii ,uici Ut ilit cif ibc '-ut
itti slfll'tir-' ti 't tail- hf,1i ven iR-,19 •'".
11 Tile 1( (enr.nn .t .. 1 l I 'lint I rem
dlt uin Lanletil is i • ru
OfltC n&d that tlir
xi 'd I v' s I
doc"mtn iii' pkIuth'L ii s i
TI "as 1'%.) v'Ofla llLd tli'fl
-igreena-nt or ilie reetipt.
uf the piei-iou trarisw II n •
t1Ciig -i h nitr
a I.it ("dUn LI I) anitili bet"- 'iIfl((n Tt.
a- an'-i .'ti )%%; t rtL--t'nt.
1 3 it trill
11
£ 'tart ' i
aIc c,.r (ii ti! 1 hut t ij d'C
o tiaC (X(C'- iii"' ')
tf)IiSIfiJ Latiol' -al" at s. tj ii )IX
1dltL 'lit-) 101 l()1i ti'Z 111.1's 1 iif lk C i'tlt [ii i"
I'1 'ciii
un (S' -Inn 1ng
i' v :i
n.-- -. tin. . I. ,
Ir d 1
'n- tc t ' g.,i in ii.
ii iii L I IIC.E 24
)
t t
.r .
rn _
.. ,a. .
1
n 1 c
1
i
c cj fn
u,n
I
-, - I
.11 A.
1,1 - ---- '
%? --
'
1'c't
• -:; -. •1 •
- ' I :1
L
t
I '
s: '. I.
II
[ • 1
i; - •' it 1 t
•I•• •1 ,, i or
1 g t
r :
I • '
;t J 'li_i. .1
) I
I ))fl
ii)).'
• 1,. C
4
I
)9 'I
• ii ••, 'IIJ'
)tJ ,s )a -
I. I
$ t
TI t% T' I IPIlI ).T
tj
•. ''ft
F"
• 1 11111 fltI
'' II) '• 5 lii t
T
'. I
t
it
4
)
II 1 ..'
3)t J
'sit •.• 'I "Ii !'
I) i
T
I I'd I i( (10 'lb
I.,.', • 'tI)jIl P T I "TI
.
t St 1HZ )flfl "t', )t[ B
II' %
I gj,%
4_TI ii.T. C.. a. 1 'I'C
•-Ti.; •t- .1 C
• - Vi I
.11
• ) tIj,Tj
I I' ' 3
I ''1 I
11$
t If, -. • I 1'' a '1' 1 J''
I)' •;
1 - 1'' 9t pEst.!
1. 31 I 'i Q
• I I i
•
'[I" ' '11'' )\ •
Ji-41a.' )fl3t J
t L 3 ' I i
--• I
).1
I
F
I, •)1 .1
P
.9, ii
•
•
7 i1
t -- .9
. IC 1 4 I
I .' ) I
, L 1' ) )
T
I.
.11 . 1 Ut.
• 'T
'I I-' .j' J
. .
•LI ,1 I 1' j....
It
• )''Y1)i' ,11f %j 1
91%. Ta •. •.1 ). (tIlj)I''
-- U '. 1 )JP ttl"jft'.'j
[1 --
L
t
1
• it)
LT))L,, -- 1' ifi r .
I J Tj1jt ap
i
IiI,i I . 3)11' Lust
'; L'
--
•'a :'r.
II jIJ)U' i'll bUIJ JOt. 'p [ )"..Lt1 ;i
T U
4
'J '1. TilT ' ..i %.'
.1 a. 1:31 huE' ith 1. 1.'dI '1 Sb 1 )Tj I 11. , a) •T ) 9% j ) Li I s a '1 I' ; '1'3 I ',Iilt 11 1119 11, • itt) '1 3 1p) •j 'ta) •)'VTi 3"% ttj ill 1 )1)II)tT ) 1.: jlf " ! A i 'I 17 arly establishes that
17. The evidence on record cle the sale agreement Ei'cP. 1 the defendant has executed has received a sum of and receipt Ex.P.2 and s justified Rs. 1.90.000/-. Therefore, the trial Court wa of IRs. 1,90,000/- with In decreeing the stilt for a sum illcgaliiy in the Interest. I do not find any error or l Court. Therefore, the findings recorded by the tria cree does not call for Impugned Judgment and De rit in this appeal and interference. There is no me d.
therefore, It is liable to be dismisse d.
Accordingly. the appeal Is dismisse No costs.
Sd/a JUDGE Is