Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Learned counsel Sri. P.S. Malipatil along with learned counsel Miss. Bhavana Patil appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contends that defendant No.1, deliberately, consequent to the Agreement of Sale executed by himself and the plaintiff got the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property executed by the husband of defendant No.3 in favour of his wife, the defendant No.2. It is further contended that the

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40436-DB entire sale consideration having been paid, the Trial Court erred in refusing to order for specific performance. It is further contended that the execution of Sale Agreement having been admitted, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit by ordering for specific performance and hence, he seeks for allowing of the above appeal and granting of the reliefs sought for.

13. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. P. Mahadevswamy learned counsel for respondent No.3 justifies the findings recorded by the Trial Court and contends that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts that the Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was a contingent contract, contingent upon the property being conveyed in favour of the defendant No.1. That the suit property admittedly not having been conveyed in favour of the plaintiff, the Trial Court was justified in refusing to order specific performance.

15. The contentions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Trial Court have been perused.

16. The questions that arises for consideration are; 

                 i)   Whether      the   Trial   Court   was
                 justified in refusing the order for
                 specific performance?
                                - 12 -
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:40436-DB





                   ii) Whether the judgment and decree
                   passed by the Trial Court is just and
                   proper?

Re: Question No.1:

24. It is clear from the material on record that the defendant No.1 not being the owner of the suit property on the date of the Agreement, the question of considering grant of the specific performance of the Agreement (Ex.P1) does not arise. The Trial Court was justified in refusing the relief of specific performance. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:40436-DB Re: question No.2: