IN "FEE may COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DA'I'EI} THIS THE 2331?» DA): 'OF '1:.:;s:»:1§fij2.'*)t)kaé5' _ H V
I3EFo:2I.%; % ' %
THE HONBLE MRV.'g'fL§S'I'IVCa'&2' 5
R.F.;_mo. 1 (Si?) 1
BETWEEN é
M.sa:£1jeevi
S/0. Late My111i__§,r;§n ;_
Since dead by
Sri 1:;-. -.
S/0. Late
Aged 30 §'f:é3I"$ VA . '
N 0.2841) .N0.-II ,SUf<::1t';Road Cross
S11ivajiI1f§.g;;11' _ V' _ ' . "
BaJ1,<gaIOI~e." ' Appeliaxtlt
- _ (By.§§1*i"S.A..£y1uje§§ifl2Xr;iv.)
smr,§§3.G.Ram
" Ramesh (dead)
S.G.Veerabhadra Babu
Majal'
4. Sundara Bai
Major
5. Kum. Savitha Devi
Majm'
No.3 to 5 being majors, sun and .
Dauglltem of late S.R.Govi1Miéia1':3ju--.& , _ V
R/a: No.66, Broadway Ftoagi
Shivajinagar V
Bangalore-I. '
6. Smt.Kusu111a Thrim
Majcar "
Widow of late S;'G;"I_'h1?fi1I:}1thuff _ "
Tagore Mantessori-[-Schotflf _ _ '
Ibrahim Sahsbifitiwait "
Civii Stfitiflft _ _ "
saaaxxgasét-:»:»e.
Respon¢3er};$# '
wide Af;§3fdei%'dat"esi 12.11.2002 ...Respondcnt
(By Advocatt: for R 1)
_1Ti1is 'ap}peai'* under sactiorx 96 CPO pI'ayiI1g
Ejafiitie fl1éfVju£1gme1'zt and decree dated 29.10.2001,
' '$11 10960/' 1990, on tile fiie of XXVIII
Judge at £3a1"1ga1cm:2, clismissirlg the suit
fm: _$pcc:iF1§:l{)e1'i'01*Inance.
AA ; " Tiie appeal coming on for final hearirag this day,
t;':1«::..u€.'.oi1rt dtzlivered the fuilowing:
W va»»<a--~»--
JQQQMELQ If
T In this appeal parties would be V.
array before trial court.
2. This appeal is . ?¥::yf__ the' " L1_IiS1;CC-fivgfifiiiv *
in O.S.1C296O/1990 on cuefiie.pf_2§Xx?:11«}a:id1.fC::y Civii
& Sessions J udge, triai Judge
dismissed the suit fO:1'='
3. in brief are as
:mows:%%kT . 1 1;
property belonged to 3
br§:§hé1*s G;§viI1da1'ajulu, SR. Trimoorthy and
_so11s cf late S.R.Rangaiah and each of
share. SR. Ganesh died leaving Mhind
};3.11d SD11 viz defendants I and 2. TI'imc)o1'thy
V' tiieti Raving behind his widow and SR. G0vi11da.:£'a}u1u
leaving behiztlci his sen and daughters.
It is the case of plaizfiiiff that late SR.
C:oviI'1da1"ajulu~ defendailt 110.6 and defe11da11ts 1 anti fl
«ix
¢\7%
Le. 1.6.88. 11; was also ageed that :£<}i'-
registmtioll shall be borne: by " ' . '4
The suit. schtzdule L»
brothem. S11bsequc1:1t1yV was V. S
Trimoorthy. The LES of
SR. Gaxaesh. had share of their
Iiability uI'1c1'e1':«AA£the no.6. The
piaintiff Vamount payable by
ti} defendant 110.6
widow 0f SR.
.:a:nd 2 were: Jziot mady to perfarm
»A 'the contract tiimugh piaintifi' was ready and
H V -1' his part of 0<)I'1tra(:t. 'l'I1erefo1'€,
a suit ibr specific pviz1da1'aju1y and t.1'1t-::m had I/3m
Sfiaifi' in the 'élld 2 admitted
that fi'1ey..at§;2 G81'i{3S3f}.. They
have .'§'1'hn00'1fi"1y died leavirlg
}1is1fli:).6 and SR. Govitaciéaléajuiu
died léaV'§1g 3 to 5 as his legal
repijeSt311tati\€€3's. A H _
- have coxztended that they were not
afitfire _.«;=;f deed executed by defe1:da11t in respect 0f
her 1%%;'s%v slam in the suit px°ope:m:y and also about firing
§;s§.. :-§i_1i't agaixmt defantiants 3 to 5. Defe11daI'1ts have
..._.*_ienit':d that they' had ageed to sell their 1 / 31"" share to
pIa;i:'1tiiT for Rs.53,333/ --. T1163?' havte also 6d they
IV - ' 17$-\»--0x.T-~ 4
3.,
AT the impugned
1i
(1
W1'1€:the1' piai1'1i:iff has proved that Defezlaiagfza
had ex-muted an agreeme11t cf sale datedff}
for Collsidelatiorl of RS.53,-333.],-__iI1 E51' K 2
sham in suit sclleduie p1'0pe1F§_y. A. .3
Wlxether piailiitiff E1a§--.,_i;S1:s;vedV' =t;I1atT e3f
Rs.i35,()0iZ}/ ~ was paid éid.vi311_<::e cd£=1$id§:faii0n to
Deft::nda1%1ts- 1 anti'««i2iT'?'
Whether' piailitiif had
dischargéd
proved that he has been
ealw-£5355"zx3ati§"aéj'i¢i"w_i1fi.Iig to perform 111:5 part of the
c:Q11t:ra(:'t.?'V _ V "V
V"L"J;?113véé'i.i1é1.'A'_ €116" "" Mgfiiaigtltiif is entitled for specific
pezrfoigilaimcé?
judglzlent Calis fer
x T i1'1tc.rf<:reI1ct2 1-'
V' $2) Plaintiff has cotltended that the entire suit
dc:ai:h his 550113 namely,
% échedme property belorlged to SR. Raghavalu, after his
SR. Govinda1"aju}.u, 8.1%.
\
N
paper was sold. Even it does not contain '
of stamp vendor and his license " "
of document ---~Ex.P1 does not Stete er;
executed.
20) The . '_ é_ 1_nac1e*-ixflg .Patfa--12 of the plaint
would lead that, late ."G:§r1ea1:~..1~;jad executed an
agreement iI1"f3§LKfQiH' ef 01.0€s.1988 and
Iiéefendanteg Win" Qimd son are bound to
pezforfie _ .:§eIigations in terms of
amememe Adatgfd 1988. Even as per the
averuzezgts "c;r.f'h *aii1.e:m:led plaint, plaintiffs had
.' V. Ganesh and Defendants 1 and 2
part of contract, but they have not done
so.*-._
u 221} 'Hams on a careful consirgieration of the
' &i'fJ61'H1€I1tS of plaint, it is not clear as to whether SR.
'4 Ganesh had executed an ageement in favour of
[V . (:3¢Lx- [3-~ "#54 ~-----
22) Dtiririg CI'0SS'-®}£aII1iI1&tiOI1, FW. 1
that he had seen defendants 1 K "
is no ;{};1()1'€. When he wee
defendant, he was not able'i;o"--ideidttiijfdi L'
He has deposed, the ;_other of T-edglitdproperty
have delivered the to him.
23) It was a litigation
between his brothers nemeiy,
SR. The suit for
pariifioix of 2007 by s.R. {3at:1esh in
1'espe::t. eff elld subsequently, final decree
V. be filed by Defendants 1 and :2
No.6. During the pendency of this
Ajthe rexaeonsnip of 3.12. Gajnesh with
1 and 2 was not cordial. In these
VA the wee of plaintiff that Defendants 1
2 and the above said Govinclarajuiu together
agreed to Se}! the suit schedule property for total
I\_}_ (,Aeu-£.£}:«._.
considczatriozrx of Rs.1,60,000/~ looks impmbabi-3.' on
01.06.1988
said ‘I’hI’imo0rthy and Ganesfi
alive. It looks impmbable K 2
obtaillcd decree in 0.8. No.
and separate possession of the: ‘
suit property and 113d
together had agreed 1/31″‘? share
to plaintiffs for’: $50,000 / ~.
V if is avermd that. the
R~S.25,(}O0/– to SR. Ganfish.
It is net’:z1j%%d:sp::ieo’ on 01.05.1933, 3.12. Ganesh
wa:5_§f’i1o’t. alive.’ ~ Pafi*a– 12(1) of the plaint, it is averred
V. ?afi4vA’agreetn1ent of saie dated 01.06. 1988, signed
of late SR. Ganesh , he
-V sell his 1/3*” share in the Suit schedule:
K V’ V prugqcxfir for 3 31.1111 of Rs.53,333/– and defendants 1 and
bound to execute and register the sale deed in
Hi€Z’II}5 of the agreement and deliver the vacant
XL? A.-~ .{;’I.-~~–€1. W.
20
poseessiolz of the property. Subsequexltly, the
amexided to include LE3 of SR. Ganesh
parties. Thus the averments of Zpiaizat ” 2
1:2(ii) would establish that amt
by SE. (}a1’1e3h and 1 V
cf the plaint it is averted 3130 a
party to the $1,1it agreeifieiexe. averments
of the plaint V’
25) emit property belonged
to 8.1%. ‘I’hrim()orthy and SR.
(}anesI1′.A referred to above had
1:0 eel} ~ fjndivided 1/31″” slmre in the suit
–4;Hq)§srever in the suit agreement dated
stated the (iefe1″1daI1tS 1 and 2 haci
–V ag1;éed”‘*V!;g and deliver the vacmat possession of the
‘A I/T31? eshare within three 111011613 from 01.06.1988.
~ 3-“:h’11’s, evidence of plajniiii’ is not cor1sistent. PM/.1 has
Wfieposeé that SR. GOVifld3I”dU1H, SR. Thririloortlzzy and
ax’? _ (\M$/\_»&.§”w”~”0l”””
26
plaintiff that Defe11daI’1ts «-1 and 2 arid .
together had ag1’ee£1 to sail T1163′; if _31″d sham K V’
in {ht-;: suit rscheduie p1″‘ope1″ty, is ‘A1’a1e§f5:;A. :’ A
33} PW J. in his ev’idéi’§r€é.»¥1as; fiztfi; as to
w’11<'~:ti2e1'1'1e was Q11 t.I:1e é{gi'éE§meI'1t. It
is also f{)£lI'1f.i 'U131 file fifiérxdors nazliely,
SR. G0viI1cla§;*~aj'a:gi §, SR. Raznesh
have not Lseeltg 1.i1€I'Iii{112ltf::Li ééuii; 8.gL{'6(iII1&i'IlL The
copy the acknowledgement
prtzvducfiii by 110$: estabiish that the Iegai
Iloticztzs ij1ad"bec:1"x~S'e1"(é*eci. on Deft':1'1d:ani;s – 1 and
A V' " (3-4}4)"a View 0f the discr&1;ra¢11t and i1"1he1'eI'1tly
ii11.i):°0b£i.bi&i'jfiiifiiezice, I hold {I131 plai11'tifi's failed to prove:
the: éig1*ét{11ie11't. of sale dated 01.06. 1988.
V' ' "i'he lea3:'11e(i trial court; on propel' appmciatioil
_H__@xv*- id ~—–
” -mi’ €ViCl€iI1(;'(:”i, hats a1″1″:iv{:(i at right Corlciusion.
f\aV C ‘4″-‘