Karnataka High Court
Vinayak S/O. Gurunathsa Pawar vs Ushadevi W/O. Shashidharayya ... on 26 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282
RFA No. 3111 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.3111/2011
BETWEEN:
VINAYAK S/O. GURUNATHSA PAWAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1. ANITHA WD/O. VINAYAK PAWAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 020.
2. SAWAN S/O. VINAYAK PAWAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 020.
3. SAGAR S/O. VINAYAK PAWAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 020.
Digitally
signed by 4. SANDESH S/O. VINAYAK PAWAR,
VINAYAKA AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BV R/O: KALYAN NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI - 580 020.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. USHADEVI
W/O. SHASHIDHARAYYA ULLAGADDIMATH,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHAKTI NAGAR, H.NO.49, NEAR DR. WALL'S
RESIDENCE, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI - 580 020.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282
RFA No. 3111 of 2011
2. SRI KIRAN S/O. SHASHIDHARAYYA ULLAGGADDIMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHAKTI NAGAR, H.NO.55, T ROHAN
SOHAN,AKSHAYA COLONY, UDHATAN BAGARM,
HUBLI - 580 020.
3. SRI DEEPAK S/O.SHASHIDHARAYYA ULLAGGADDIMATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: H.NO.49, NEAR DR. WALL'S RESIDENCE,
SHAKTI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI - 580 020.
4. SRI DEEPAUC
S/O. SHASHIDHARAYYA ULLAGGADDIMATH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLO NO.63, BEHIND NEW BUS STAND,
HUBLI - 580 020.
5. SRI VISHWAPRAKASH
S/O. RAJASHEKHARAYYA ULLAGADDIMATH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5(A) SMT. SUNITHA W/O.VISHWAPRAKASH ULLAGADDIMATH,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
5(B) SMT. KUKRADEVI
W/O. RAJASHEKHARAYYA ULLAGADDIMATH,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
5(C) SRI RAJAT, S/O. VISHWAPRAKASH ULLAGADDIMATH,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
5(D) PRITHVIKA
D/O. LATE VISHWAPRAKASH ULLAGADDIMATH,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. BY HER MINOR
GUARDIAN MOTHER R5(A).
ALL R/O: ULLGADDIMATH ONI,
HUBLI - 580 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (A, C, AND D)
R5 D IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R5(A);
SRI C.N. HARLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5(B);
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R2, R3 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282
RFA No. 3111 of 2011
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE
1 AND 2 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.05.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.75/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FILED FOR SPEDIVIC PERFORMANCE DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.
THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.75/2006 is impugning the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), dismissing his suit seeking specific performance of the contract.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract i.e., agreement for sale dated 14.07.2003, said to have been executed by the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 agreed to sell the schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. On the date of the agreement i.e., on 14.07.2003, he received Rs.4,00,000/- in -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 advance and executed the registered agreement for sale as per Ex.P1. Subsequently on 22.09.2003, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 requested for additional amount of consideration and accordingly the supplementary agreement as per Ex.P.10 was executed. Where under, the plaintiff paid further consideration amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is contended that only Rs.1,00,000/- was due to be paid by the plaintiff towards purchase of the schedule property.
5. It is stated that the executor of the agreement i.e., the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4 died on 12.10.2003 and therefore, the plaintiff issued the legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 4 calling upon them to execute the sale deed. The said notice was not claimed by the defendants. Thereafter on 07.12.2004 the defendants have sold the schedule property in favour of defendant No.5, only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff.
6. Defendant No.5 is the relative of defendant Nos.1 to
4. Therefore. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the contract by declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.5 is not binding on them. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court and filed written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff including the description of the property. It is denied that Shashidarayya Mahalingayya Ullagaddimath had entered into an agreement for sale on 14.07.2003. It is admitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased Shashidarayya. It is stated that the suit property is the ancestral property of the family and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are also having the right over the same. Execution of an agreement for sale or supplementary agreement by accepting the advance amount are all denied. It is contended that the plaintiff has concocted fake documents and seeking relief of specific performance of the contract.
8. It is contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.5 for valuable consideration and since then defendant No.5 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Plaintiff is not in possession of the property. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory cost at Rs.10,000/-. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
9. Defendant No.5 also appeared before the Court and filed the written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff and contended that he purchased the schedule property by paying the consideration under the registered sale deed dated 07.12.2004 which is produced as Ex.D8. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the suit.
10. On the basis of these pleadings the following issues were came to be framed;
"1.Whether plaintiff proves that deceased Shashidharayya agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.12,00,000/- by receiving Rs.4,00,000/- and by executing the agreement of sale on 14.7.2003?
2. Whether he further proves that he has paid Rs 7,00,000/- on 22.9.2003 to him and deceased has executed the supplementary agreement?
3. Whether he further proves that defendants have refused to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-?
4. Whether he proves that he was and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
5. Whether he further proves that defendant Nos 1 to 4 have illegally entered into sale of suit property with defendant No.5 on 7.12.2004?
6. Whether defendant No.5 proves that he is innocent purchaser of suit property for valuable consideration?
7. What order or decree?"-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
11. Plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 in support of his contentions. Defendants examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.D1 to D14 in support of their defence.
12. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 and 5 in the negative. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
13. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
14. Heard Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Harsh Desai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 (A, C & D).
15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1, spoke about Ex.P1- the registered agreement for sale and supplementary agreement produced as per Exs.P1 and P10. He got examined PW2 to prove Ex.P.1 as he is the attesting witness. PW.3 is the attesting witness to the supplementary agreement. PW.4 is scribe/typist who prepared Ex.P.1. Even though all these -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 witnesses are cross-examined, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version.
16. When Ex.P.10 is a registered document and the same is not controverted by the defendants, they are bound to execute the sale deed. Moreover PW.3 the attesting witness to the supplementary agreement spoke about the execution of the agreement by the father of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Thereby the plaintiff has proved his contention. Even though defendants examined DWs.1 to 4 their defence is not probabalized.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that defendant No.5 never pleaded nor proved that he is a bonafide purchaser for value. There is absolutely no pleading, nor evidence to that effect. On the other hand, during cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he had not paid any consideration, nor got the possession of the property, but only got executed the sale deed from defendant Nos.1 to 4. This is the true fact of the case, as defendant No.5 is the relative of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Only to avoid execution of the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff a sham document was executed as per Ex.D8, in favour of defendant No.5. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
18. Learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court found fault with the plaintiff for not seeking the alternative relief for compensation in the event of refusing specific performance of the contract. He submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the contract, even at this stage, the plaintiff may be permitted to amend the plaint to seek compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Manickam @ Thandapani & Anr. Vs. Vasantha1 in support of his contention that under Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff is not bound to seek the consequential relief of possession of the property and to the effect that the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree of specific performance of contract. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. B.P. PLC and Othersb2 to contend that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that such a relief of possession should have been sought for by the plaintiff, even at this stage permission could 1 2022 Live Law (SC) 395 2 2022 Live Law (SC 185
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 be granted to amend the plaint, to seek the relief of possession. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 opposing the appeal submitted that respondent No.5 is a bonafide purchaser for value. Several years have lapsed after execution of the sale deed, as per Ex.D8. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed the sale deed by accepting the consideration amount. The Trial Court categorically held that the plaintiff has not proved execution of the supplementary agreement nor he proved handing over the possession under Ex.P.10. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any relief. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
20. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat and Another3 to contend that u/s 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act unless the consequential reliefs are prayed, the Court is not bound to grant relief in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has not sought for possession of the property, he is not entitled for the 3 (2001) 7 SCC 698
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 relief of Specific Performance of the Contract. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
21. Perused the materials on record including trial Court records.
22. In view of the above the point that would arise for my consideration is;
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference of this Court?"
23. My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following;
REASONS
24. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract, i.e., the agreement for sale dated 14.07.2003, which is a registered document. It is his contention that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed the supplementary agreement of sale dated 22.09.2004 by accepting the additional advance amount of Rs.7 lakhs and by handing over possession of the suit property. In spite of demand, defendants were not ready and willing to execute the sale
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 deed. Hence, he prayed for the relief of specific performance of the contract.
25. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have contested the matter by filing the written statement. Even though the relationship with Shashidarayya was admitted, they denied the execution of the agreement for sale as contended by the plaintiff.
26. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW1. During cross- examination he admitted that defendant No.4 is a signatory to Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.10, but strangely DW4 has not filed the written statement nor he has entered the witness box to deny execution of the agreement for sale. Moreover, Ex.P.1 dated 14.07.2003 is a registered agreement for sale where under advance of Rs.4 lakhs was paid. The father of defendant nos.1 to 4 died on 12.10.2003, i.e., within three months from the registration of agreement of sale-Ex.P.1 and within a month after the supplementary agreement for sale. The plaintiff produced Ex.P.4, copy of the notice dated 05.01.2004 got issued to defendant nos.1 to 4. Exs.P.5 to P.8 are the postal envelopes returned to the plaintiff as the addressees i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not claimed. These documents suggest that defendant nos.1 to 4 knowing fully well about the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 agreement for sale executed by their father, even signed by defendant no.4, have not claimed the notice knowing about its contents. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P.1, defendant nos.1 to 4 have sold the schedule property in favour of defendant no.5 under sale deed - Ex.D.8 dated 20.10.2004. Even though defendant no.5 contested the matter by filing written statement, he never pleaded that he is the bonafide purchaser for value, without notice of the agreement. Even though he was examined as DW2 he never whispered that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.
27. The trial Court categorically held issue no.1 in the affirmative holding that the plaintiff has proved that deceased Shashidharayya agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.12 lakhs by receiving Rs.4 lakhs and executing the agreement of sale on 14.07.2003. It answered issue no.2 in the negative in respect of the supplementary agreement. It is pertinent to note that issue no.3 is answered in the affirmative to hold that defendants have refused to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.1 lakh. Unless the Court accepts the contention of the plaintiff regarding payment of the additional amount of Rs.7 lakhs under the supplementary
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 agreement dated 22.09.2003, the trial Court could not have answered issue no.3 in the affirmative holding that balance consideration amount was only Rs.1 lakh to be paid by the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that the trial Court has answered issue no.4 in the affirmative to hold that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, it answered issue no.5 in the negative to hold that it cannot be said that defendant nos.1 to 4 have illegally entered into the sale of the suit property in favour of defendant no.5. Again it answered issue no. 6 in the affirmative to uphold the contention of defendant no.5 that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value.
28. The trial Court has answered issue nos.5 and 6 in favour of defendant No.5 by observing that DW2-defendant No.5 has deposed before the Court that he had no knowledge regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and the deceased. But the trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that there is no pleading nor there is any evidence to the effect that defendant no.5 is a bonafide purchaser for value, without notice.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
29. Ex.P.1 the registered agreement dated 13.07.2003. Ex.P.10 is the supplementary agreement dated 22.09.2003. After executing Ex.P.10 the father of defendant nos.1 to 4 died on 12.10.2003. Thereafter, on 05.01.2004 the plaintiff got issued the legal notice as per Ex.P.4, which was not claimed by defendant nos.1 to 4. Thereafter on 07.12.2004 the suit property was sold in favour of defendant no.1. If at all defendant no.5 was diligent in verifying the encumbrance certificate, he could have known about the agreement- Ex.P.1 dated 14.07.2003. Moreover it is never the contention of defendant No.5 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the agreements, either in his written statement or in his evidence. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that defendant No.5 is not a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. The conduct of defendant nos.1 to 4 in alienating the schedule property in favour of defendant no.5, without claiming the notice issued by the plaintiff probabalises the lack of bonafides on their part. If all these facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, in the light of fatal admission given by DW2 during cross examination to the effect that since he has not invested any amount, he had not taken
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 possession of the property even after the sale deed, assumes much importance. Under such circumstances, the trial Court committed an error in forming an opinion that defendant no.5 is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.
30. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (supra), to contend that in view of Sec. 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief since he had not sought for possession of the schedule property. The Apex Court referring to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act considered the contention taken by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendants/appellants and categorically held in paragraph nos.17 and 18 as under:
"17. It may be seen that sub-section (1) is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit of specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Clause (a) contains reliefs of possession and partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 22 is that no relief under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. Thus it follows that no court can grant the relief of possession of land or other immovable property, subject matter of the agreement for sale in regard to which specific performance is claimed, unless the possession of the immovable property is specifically prayed for.
18. In the instant case the suit is for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property wherein relief of delivery of the suit property has not been
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 specifically claimed, as such it cannot be treated as a "suit for land".
(emphasis supplied)
31. Further, the Apex court while rejecting the contention taken by the learned Senior Advocate for the defendants, recorded its finding at para no. 19 as under:
"19. We cannot also accept the contention of Mr. Chitale that the suit is for acquisition of title to the land and is a "suit for land". In its true sense, a suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract for sale of land is a suit for enforcement of terms of contract. The title to the land as such is not the subject matter of the suit."
(emphasis supplied)
32. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manickam (supra) in support of his contention. The Apex Court considering a similar situation held in para nos.25 and 26 as under:
25. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed. That was the position even under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Section 22 of the Act was introduced in pursuance of the recommendation of the Law Commission to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to cut down the delay. Therefore, though the preponderance of judicial opinions under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was in favour of the fact that relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance, it was further clarified by introducing Section 22 of the Act.
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011
26. The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Section 22(2) of the Act, though is worded in negative language, "no relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed", but the proviso takes out the mandatory nature from the substantive provision of sub-section (2) when the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including the plaint for such relief "at any stage of the proceeding". "At any stage of the proceeding would include the proceeding in suit or in appeal and also in execution. The proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 22 of the Act contemplates that the Court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. The said proviso makes the provision directory as no penal consequences follow under sub-section (2) of Section 22. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 22 is a rule of prudence to ask for possession "in an appropriate case". The appropriate case would not include a suit for specific performance simpliciter but may include a suit for partition or a suit when the decree is to be executed against a transferee. Subsection (2) cannot be said to be a mandatory provision as the power to claim relief at any stage of the proceeding makes sub-section (2) directory. Sub- section (2) is a matter of procedure to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The procedural laws are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights. "
(emphasis supplied)
33. Thus the position of law is very well settled. The relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and the said relief need not specifically be claiming in a suit for specific performance of the contract.
Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 of the contract can not be decreed in view of the bar under Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, cannot be accepted.
34. When it is not proved that defendant no.5 is not a bonaide purchaser for value, without notices, he cannot seek equity in his favour. When the plaintiff is successful in proving execution of the agreement-Ex.P.1 which is a registered document, the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the relief to the plaintiff.
35. From the materials on record I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the plaintiff regarding execution of the supplementary agreement dated 22.09.2003 by the father of defendant nos.1 to 4 and also by defendant no.4, by accepting the additional consideration of Rs. 7 lakhs and by taking possession of the property. If at all there was no agreement that was entered into, the defendants could have accepted the notice-Ex.P4 and could have replied to the same.
The conduct of defendant nos.1 to 4 discloses that only to regull out of the situation they have not claimed the notice and thereafter ventured to sell the suit property in favour of defendant No.5. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.4 is also one of the signatories to Ex.P.10, but he never contested
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 the matter. He has not filed the written statement denying the execution of the agreement in question, nor he stepped into the witness box to support the contention of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. There is no bonafides in the conduct of the defendants.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract from defendant nos.1 to 5 and that the sale deed dated 07.12.2004-Ex.D.8 is not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) The appeal is allowed with costs.
2) The impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2021 passed in O.S. No. 75/2006 by the Principal Senor Civil Judge, Hubli, is set aside.
3) The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.75/2006 is hereby decreed with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Specific Performance of the contracts i.e., the registered agreement dated 14.07.2003 and agreement dated 22.09.2003. He is entitled to get the registered sale deed executed
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6282 RFA No. 3111 of 2011 by defendant nos.1 to 5 by accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, within 3 months from the date of the decree, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get it registered through the process of the Court.
4) It is also declared that the sale deed dated 07.12.2004 - Ex.D.8 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
JUDGE RH/BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17