Bangalore District Court
B.R. Vasudeva Murthy vs Smt.S.Gunamba on 30 July, 2021
1
OS.No.2565/2012
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 30th July 2021
PRESENT
Sri. SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK, B.A.L., LL.B.
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge.
O.S.No.2565/2012
Plaintiff: B.R. Vasudeva Murthy,
S/o T.R.Ramaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.34, 3rd Main Road,
Manjunathnagar,
West of Chord Road,
Bangalore - 10.
[By Sri.T.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate]
/VS/
Defendants: Smt.S.Gunamba
(SINCE DEAD BY LRS)
1(a) S.Mahesh Kumar,
S/o Sri.S.Shivalingappa,
Aged about 45 years,
1(b) Smt.Malini,
D/o Sri.SShivalingappa,
Aged about 42 years,
1(c) Smt.Manjula,
D/o Sri.S.Shivalingappa,
Aged about 35 years,
2
OS.No.2565/2012
1(a) to 1(c) are R/at Ruthu, No.8,
V.H.Complex, 8th Main Road,
III Phase, Girinagar,
Bangalore - 85.
Presently residing at No.43/44,
7th Main Road, Saraswathipura,
Bangalore - 86.
[By Sri.D.R.R., Advocate]
Date of institution of 07.04.2012
suit
Nature of the suit Specific performance
(Suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.
Date of the 03.09.2014
commencement of
recording of the
evidence.
Date on which the 30.07.2021
Judgment was
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
Total duration: 09 03 23
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK)
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
J UD GME N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit for Specific
performance directing the defendant to execute the sale
deed in his favour in terms of agreement of sale
dtd.2.5.2009 by receiving balance sale consideration of
3
OS.No.2565/2012
Rs.2,87,000/- and if the defendant fails to execute the
same, the same may be executed through court in
respect of the suit schedule property and put the plaintiff
in possession 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 that the defendant
is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal
Corporation No.223, PID No.15-44-223 measuring East-
West 29.3 feet and North-South 41 feet consisting of
ground, first, second,third and fourth floor situated at 1 st
Stage, 1st phase, Manjunathnagar, Bangalore ie., suit
schedule property. On 28.4.2009, the defendant offered to
sell the suit schedule property infavour of the plaintiff and
after negotiation plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for
total consideration of Rs.53,87,000/-. It is further
contended that the defendants informed them that on
18.9.2008 she had entered into an agreement of sale to
sell the suit schedule property infavour of one D.Madhu
and after rescinding the said contract, she should execute
the agreement of sale and requested the plaintiff to pay a
sum of Rs.51 Lakhs on 28.4.2009 itself. Accordingly
plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs way of two
cheques bearing No.136621 for Rs.21 Lakhs and cheque
4
OS.No.2565/2012
No.216476 for Rs.29 Lakhs dtd.18.4.2009 and
Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. The defendant has executed
the registered agreement of sale dtd.2.5.2009 in favour of
the plaintiff. Further the defendant agreed to receive the
balance sale consideration amount at the time of
execution of the registered sale deed and handed over all
the original documents to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff
was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract,
the defendant has made shara on 31.10.2009 extending
four months time to execute the registered sale deed as
she is unable to secure the documents. It is further
contended that inspite of several approach by the plaintiff,
defendant never come forward to execute the sale deed. As
such plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notices
dtd.24.5.2011 and 26.2.2012 calling upon the defendant
to execute the sale deed. The defendant upon receiving the
notice dtd.26.2.212 sent reply stating that the transaction
is a loan transaction and she had received to Rs.50Lakhs
and she has not received Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and she
has paid interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff and
she is not under any obligation of executing the sale deed.
Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this court with the
suit for specific performance of contract. Hence, prayed to
decree the suit.
3. The defendant appeared through her counsel
5
OS.No.2565/2012
and filed the written statement denying the plaint
averments. She has admitted that she is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property. She has admitted the
transaction with D.Madhu and about the security
agreement and which was settled for Rs.55 Lakhs. It is
further contended that the document No.285/2009-10 as
been registered but not intended as an agreement of sale.
It is further contended that the defendant had
borrowed a sum of Rs.27 Lakhs in order to overcome a
financial duress in the year 2009. It is further contended
that as D.Madhu had set a dead line of 30.4.2008, the
defendant expressed the situation to the plaintiff and
requested him to help her. The father of the plaintiff
agreed to advance a loan of Rs.57 Lakhs out of which
Rs.50 Lakhs was to be advanced if the defendant were to
pledge all her documents in relation to the suit schedule
property and further sum of Rs.7 Lakhs was agreed to be
advanced as a loan on security of the property of son in
law of the defendant. The plaintiff had received the
documents by executing a covering letter. The defendant
agreed to repay the loan amount within 6 months along
with interest at 18% per annum. It is further contended
that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. The
defendant has also narrated the transaction between her,
D.Madhu, plaintiff and father, and cancellation of the
6
OS.No.2565/2012
earlier agreement of sale. It is further contended that the
market value of the suit schedule property exceeds Rs.80
Lakhs. It is further contended that till December 2010,
she had paid interest to the plaintiff. It is further
contended that no such endorsement was executed on
31.10.2009 but such signatures were made only in the
month of July 2011. The defendant has denied the ready
and willingness of the plaintiff as no agreement of sale
was ever intended to be acted upon but was for the
purpose of having a security for the amounts received by
depositing title deeds. Presently, the schedule property is
consisting of constructions, housing the school which is
conducted in the said building. Defendant had borrowed
the loans and the loans could not be discharged well
within the time. If the suit schedule property is disposed
off in any manner there would be no venues for the
continuity of the school. On the above grounds, prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor has framed the following issues :
1.Whether plaintiff proves that defendant had executed an agreement to sell dtd.2.5.2009 in his favour agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.53,87,000/- and had paid Rs.51 Lakhs as advance amount to defendant?
2. Whether plaintiff proves his ready and willingness to obtaining sale deed from the defendant by paying 7 OS.No.2565/2012 balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,87,000 to the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has executed shara on sale agreement dtd. 31.10.2009 and agreed to extend time of 4 months?
4. Whether defendant proves that the alleged transaction dtd.2.5.2009 of borrowing amount from plaintiff is a loan transaction execution of registered sale agreement dtd.2.5.2009 is for security for the loan availed by her from plaintiff?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract?
6. What decree or order?
5. Plaintiff got examined himself and two witnesses as PW1 to 3, got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P22 and closed his side. The defendants examined Defendant No.1(a) as DW1, got marked documents at Ex.D1 & 2 and closed their side.
6. Heard the arguments for plaintiff and defendant. Perused, the evidence and materials placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the affirmative
Issue No.6 : As per final order,
For the following:
8
OS.No.2565/2012
REA S ON S
8. Issue No.1,3 & 4: As these issues are
interlinked, I have taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. It is settled principle of law that agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. It can also be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it. However, as per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a contract for sale does not itself create any interest or charge in the property. It is the settled position of law that normally time is not of essence of a contract in case of immovable property. However, contract must be performed within a reasonable time.
As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit for specific performance has to be filed within three years 9 OS.No.2565/2012 from the date stipulated in the contract or from the date of refusal to perform the contract.
10. Keeping these principles in mind, let me analyze whether the plaintiff is able to establish before the court that he is entitled for specific performance as prayed for or otherwise.
11. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal Corporation No.223, PID No.15-44-223 measuring East-West 29.3 feet and North-South 41 feet consisting of ground, first, second,third and fourth floor situated at 1st Stage, 1st phase, Manjunathnagar, Bangalore ie., suit schedule property. On 28.4.2009, the defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property infavour of the plaintiff and after negotiation plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for total consideration of Rs.53,87,000/-. It is further contended that the defendants informed them that on 18.9.2008 she had entered into an agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property infavour of one D.Madhu and after rescinding the said contract, she should execute the agreement of sale and requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.51 Lakhs on 28.4.2009 itself. Accordingly plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs way of two cheques bearing 10 OS.No.2565/2012 No.136621 for Rs.21 Lakhs and cheque No.216476 for Rs.29 Lakhs dtd.18.4.2009 and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash. The defendant has executed the registered agreement of sale dtd.2.5.2009 in favour of the plaintiff. Further the defendant agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of execution of the registered sale deed and handed over all the original documents to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant has made shara on 31.10.2009 extending four months time to execute the registered sale deed as she is unable to secure the documents. It is further contended that inspite of several approach by the plaintiff, defendant never come forward to execute the sale deed. As such plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notices dtd.24.5.2011 and 26.2.2012 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant upon receiving the notice dtd.26.2.212 sent reply stating that the transaction is a loan transaction and she had received to Rs.50Lakhs and she has not received Rs.1,00,000/- by cash and she has paid interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff and she is not under any obligation of executing the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this court with the suit for specific performance of contract.
11OS.No.2565/2012
12. Percontra, the defendant has admitted that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. She has admitted the transaction with D.Madhu and about the security agreement and which was settled for Rs.55 Lakhs. It is further contended that the document No.285/2009-10 as been registered but not intended as an agreement of sale. It is further contended that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.27 Lakhs in order to overcome a financial duress in the year 2009. It is further contended that as D.Madhu had set a dead line of 30.4.2008, the defendant expressed the situation to the plaintiff and requested him to help her. The father of the plaintiff agreed to advance a loan of Rs.57 Lakhs out of which Rs.50 Lakhs was to be advanced if the defendant were to pledge all her documents in relation to the suit schedule property and further sum of Rs.7 Lakhs was agreed to be advanced as a loan on security of the property of son in law of the defendant. The plaintiff had received the documents by executing a covering letter. The defendant agreed to repay the loan amount within 6 months along with interest at 18% per annum. It is further contended that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. The defendant has also narrated the transaction between her, D.Madhu, plaintiff and father, and cancellation of the earlier agreement of sale. It is 12 OS.No.2565/2012 further contended that the market value of the suit schedule property exceeds Rs.80 Lakhs. It is further contended that till December 2010, she had paid interest to the plaintiff. It is further contended that no such endorsement was executed on 31.10.2009 but such signatures were made only in the month of July 2011. The defendant has denied the ready and willingness of the plaintiff as no agreement of sale was ever intended to be acted upon but was for the purpose of having a security for the amounts received by depositing title deeds. Presently, the schedule property is consisting of constructions, housing the school which is conducted in the said building. Defendant had borrowed the loans and the loans could not be discharged well within the time. If the suit schedule property is disposed off in any manner there would be no venues for the continuity of the school. On the above grounds, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
13. On perusal of entire materials on record, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the defendant has executed the sale agreement dtd.2.5.2009 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.53,87,000/- and the plaintiff has advanced a sum of Rs.51 Lakhs to the defendant. In support of the pleading the plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 registered sale agreement dtd. 2.5.2009. The plaintiff who is examined as PW1 has 13 OS.No.2565/2012 reiterated the plaint averments and further in the cross examination deposed that the property involved in OS.2968/2012 and the suit property of the present case, there is a school by name Royal English School. Further deposed that the said school is located within both the suit schedule properties as a composite building. He has further deposed that Royal English School is being run by Manju Education Society since 1981. The school building in both schedule properties having ground floor plus three floors and there are 36 class rooms in the said building. He has further deposed that classes are conducted from nursery till 10th standard and school is having 650 students. He has denied the suggestion that when he entered into agreement of sale, the market value of the schedule property was Rs.80 Lakhs. He has denied that his father was dealing in finance and business. He has admitted that Gunamba had mortgaged the property with Janatha Seva Co-operative Bank to avail loan for putting up construction. He has further admitted that on the same day of sale agreement Gunamba has cancelled the earlier agreement and executed the fresh agreement of sale in his favour. He has denied the suggestion that after the plaintiff and his father having paid the amount to Madhu towards the settlement of his claim, agreement with Madhu came to be cancelled. He has admitted that 14 OS.No.2565/2012 on the date of sale agreement, he has taken the original documents. He has denied the suggestion that Gunamba had no intention of selling the property and document came to be executed for financial assistance. He has denied the suggestion that the cheques noted in the agreement of sale were not encashed by Gunamba. He has admitted that he has received the katha and kandayam document of the property upto 2.5.2009 on the same day of execution of agreement of sale. He has denied the suggestion that he and his father had agreed to advance a loan of Rs.60 Lakhs to Gunamba and out of the said amount, Rs.55 Lakhs was paid to Madhu, Rs.2 Lakhs was paid to Chandrashekar and balance amount of Rs.3 Lakh was retained by him as the interest amount. Apart from the above said admissions and denials, nothing much elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the course of cross examination, to show that the said transaction is for the loan transaction.
14. The plaintiff has also got examined PW2 & 3. PW2 in his evidence has stated that he know the plaintiff and defendant for the past 20-25 years. Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. Somewhere in the year 2009, defendant offered to sell the suit property for valuable consideration. Plaintiff coming to know about the same, after satisfying the title, location and measurement 15 OS.No.2565/2012 of the property, made up his mind to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.53,87,000/-. He has further deposed that on 28.4.2009 defendant demanded a sum of Rs.51 Lakhs and the plaintiff has issued cheques for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs and one lakh by way of cash. The defendant has agreed to execute the sale agreement by canceling the earlier agreement of sale executed in favour of one Madhu. He has further deposed that he has affixed his signature to the agreement of sale dtd.2.5.2009. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he is working as commission agent and PW3 is also working as commission agent. Plaintiff's father was working as LIC agent and he do not know whether plaintiff's father deals with any money lending business. He has admitted that there is a Royal English School in the suit schedule property. The said school was started by Shivalingamma husband of defendant and now the same is run by son of Shivalingappa.
15. P.W.3 in his evidence has reiterated the evidence of PW2. He has deposed that he has affixed his signature to the agreement of sale dtd.2.5.2009. In his cross examination, he has admitted that Royal English School being run since 1980. On one portion, there are four floors and on other portion, there are three floors in the 16 OS.No.2565/2012 school. There are 15 to 20 class rooms in the school. Further, he has admitted that defendant was in need of funds after putting up construction of fourth floor of the school and she had borrowed loan from Janatha Co- operative Bank. He has further deposed that he do not know whether to clear the said loan, defendant had borrowed the loan from Madhu. He has further deposed that he do not know whether the defendant had borrowed loan from the plaintiff to clear the loan borrowed from Madhu. He has further deposed that he do not know what was the understanding between the plaintiff and defendant in executing the sale agreement. Further deposed that he do not know whether the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to clear the loan borrowed from Madhu. He has further deposed that in connection with the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, an agreement came to be executed between plaintiff and defendant and another agreement in connection to loan of Rs.5 Lakhs came to be executed between the plaintiff and Chandrashekar. He has further deposed that sum of Rs.50 Lakhs was paid to the defendant in cash at the Sub-registrar office and sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in cheque. He has further deposed that he has affixed his signature to an agreement of sale of Chandrashekar ie., Ex.P1 in OS.No.2968/2012. The plaintiff had paid cash 17 OS.No.2565/2012 of Rs.10 Lakhs and cheque for Rs.2Lakhs to Chandrashekar.
16. On the other hand defendant No.1(a) is examined as DW1, and he has reiterated the written statement averments in his examination in chief. The defendants have relied on Ex.D1 wherein an FIR has been registered against the plaintiff's father for the offence punishable under Sec.41, 38, of Karnataka Money Lenders Act and Sec.3 & 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Act in Cr.No.20/2018 with Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station pending before 5 th ACMM. They have also relied on the complaint dtd. 19.1.2018 given by one B.R.Yathiraj Police Inspector, CCB. DW1 in his cross examination deposed that his mother has executed one letter dtd. 2.5.2009 and the Ex.P1 sale agreement is containing signature of his mother. He has admitted that after affixing the signatures on the document, they have affixed their LTM and their photographs were taken before the Sub- registrar. He has further deposed that their signatures were taken on the shara for the extension of time. He has further admitted that before execution of Ex.P1, her mother was paid a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs by way of two cheques and the same were encashed on 2.5.2009. He has further admitted that as on 2.5.2009 his mother was 18 OS.No.2565/2012 in dire need of money so as to pay to Sri.Madhu. He has further admitted that his mother had executed a sale agreement dtd. 18.9.2008 Ex.P7 in favour of Madhu after receiving a sum of Rs.41 Lakhs. He has further admitted that by receiving amount from the plaintiff, the amount was repaid to Madhu. He has further admitted that Ex.P7 sale agreement was cancelled through cancellation agreement Ex.P8 and after repayment of amount of Madhu and Ex.P7 & 8 were handed over to the plaintiff on 2.5.2009. He has further admitted that plaintiff has got issued a notice to his mother on 24.5.2011 and one more notice was got issued on 26.2.2012. He has further admitted that they have replied to the notice dtd. 26.2.2012 as per Ex.P5. He has admitted that as per Ex.P1, it is mentioned as Rs.51 Lakhs, but they have paid only 50 lakhs. He has further admitted that suit property was reconveyed in favour of his mother by BDA in the year 1990 as per Ex.P9. He had further admitted that they had borrowed loan from Janatha Co-operative Bank, by mortgaging the suit schedule property. He has denied the suggestion that by receiving the money from Madhu, they have cleared the loan of Janatha Co-operative Bank. He has further admitted that they have handed over the mortgage deed, katha document, tax paid receipts and encumbrance certificates to the plaintiff. He has further 19 OS.No.2565/2012 admitted that they do not have any documents to make out that they have borrowed the money from plaintiff on interest basis.
17. On perusal of entire materials on record and evidence of both parties, it shows that the execution of agreement of sale dtd.2.5.2009 is not disputed by the defendant. However, it is the contention of the defendant that same was executed for the purpose of loan transaction as security document. Though the defendant has taken the said contention in the written statement that it was for the loan transaction, the defendant has not produced any documents or led any oral evidence in support of the said defence. If at all the said transaction was a loan transaction, there was no impediment for the defendant to initiate appropriate legal action against the plaintiff. The records does not reveal that the defendant was either ready to refund the amount taken from the plaintiff or was paying interest on the said amount. In the absence of the rebutal evidence from the defendant, it cannot be believed that the said transaction was a loan transaction. As the plaintiff has produced the Ex.P1 agreement of sale in support of his contentions and also duly proved the execution of the shara dtd. 31.10.2009, the plaintiff has duly proved the execution of sale 20 OS.No.2565/2012 agreement dtd. 2.5.2009 and shara dtd. 31.10.2009. Though the defendant has relied on the decision reported in (2008) 7 SCC 310 - Mohammadia Co-operative Building Society Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Srinivasa Co-operative Building Society Ltd and others, the defendant has not shown how the said ruling is applicable to the present case. On perusal of the principles laid down in the said case, it shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that the society is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance of sale of Wakf Property when the transaction is not confirming to Wakf Act, 1954 and Rules framed by the State Government. As the dispute in the said case is relating to Wakf property, the decision relied by the defendant does not render any assistance to the defendant. Therefore, issue No.1 & 3 are answered in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative.
18. Issue No.2: In order to prove this issue, the plaintiff has specifically contended that he has issued a legal notice dtd.24.5.2011 and another legal notice dtd.26.2.2012. The defendant has admitted the receipt of the said notice. And further deposed that they have issued reply to the notice dtd. 26.2.2012. The plaintiff in his legal notice dtd. 26.2.2012 has called upon the defendant to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff has 21 OS.No.2565/2012 also enclosed xerox copy of the pay order taken for a sum of Rs.2,87,000/- towards the balance sale consideration amount. It is settled principle of law that once the party enters into sale agreement, he should be ever ready to perform his part of contract right from the day of the execution of the contract. The court must take into conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances adjudged readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. Further the amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser from the date of execution till the date of decree. Mere possession of consideration amount does not mean that he is willing to perform the part of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. In the present case, consideration amount agreed was Rs.53,87,000/- and plaintiff has duly proved that he has paid Rs.51 Lakhs to the defendant. The payment of Rs.51 Lakhs amount is the substantial amount and the remaining marginal amount is Rs.2,87,000/-. It cannot be said that the person who has paid the substantial amount of Rs.51 lakhs is unable to pay remaining marginal amount of Rs.2,87,000/-. Further, the fact of sending of the legal notice and 22 OS.No.2565/2012 enclosure of xerox copy of the pay order by the plaintiff itself denotes that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
19.Issue No.5: In view of the findings on Issue No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for. Further, after the amendment to Specific Relief Act in 2018, as Sec.20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is substituted, the discretion of the court not to grant the relief of specific performance is taken away. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (18 of 2018) came into force from 1.10.2018 vide notification No.S.O.48 & 8(E) dtd.19.9.2018. Though the Act is silent as to whether the said provision is prospective or retrospective, it is a settled principle of law that when the section is substituted, it is deemed that the said provision is in force from the date of enactment of the Act itself. Therefore, this court is constrained to decree the suit for specific performance when the plaintiff has duly proved his case. Hence, I answer the above issue in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.6: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
23OS.No.2565/2012 O RDE R Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendant is hereby directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.2,87,000/- within three months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff can get the sale deed through the process of the court.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, computerised, and print out taken by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, this day the 30th July 2021.
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK) XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AN N E XU RE
1. No.of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s :
PW1 : B.R. Vasudevamurthy PW2 : Hanumanthappa PW3 : Revanna
2. No.of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1,P1(a) to(e): agreement of sale and signatures Ex.P2 : Encumbrance certificate 24 OS.No.2565/2012 Ex.P3 & 4 : Copies of legal notice Ex.P5 : Copy of reply notice Ex.P6 : Katha certificate Ex.P7 : Agreement of sale dtd.18.9.2008 Ex.P8 : Deed of Cancellation Agreement Ex.P9 : Sale deed Ex.P10 : Possession certificate Ex.P11 : Memorandum of Mortgage Ex.P12 : Discharge note Ex.P13 to 17 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P18 to 20 : Encumbrance certificates Ex.P21 : Katha Extract Ex.P22 : Demand Draft of SBI.
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant/s :
DW1 : S.Mahesh Kumar
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendant/s :
Ex.D1 : CC of FIR in Crime No.20/2018
Ex.D2 : CC of complaint dtd.19.1.2018
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge
Bangalore City.
25
OS.No.2565/2012
Judgment pronounced in the open
court vide separate judgment. The
operative portion of judgment reads
thus:
O R DE R
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed.
The defendant is hereby directed
to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.2,87,000/- within three months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff can get the sale deed through the process of the court.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVIII Addl.C.C. & S.J., Bangalore