IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2999
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 4
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, 151.0'. 88 .Oi$'72é:)5V"{s15__}_
BETWEEN:
1.
Rangaswamy,
S / 0 Revappa,
Aged 5'7 Years,
Kodikerre Road, . . V
BANGARPET TAL'LT.K'%- 543
:3:J!l3i#OHfi.H
Ramad'e'iraH»_@ Raiagappa V' ' '
8/ 0 Drivcrv ».M'Vg1Vniswamappa,'A
Reddyh_aEIiXVfi]A1_age, Késaba Hobli,
BANGARPE1 ~T[ALU1_.{H-.~__"ti_J63 1 14.
[By s1~a.4P;EsV.Manjuinafih; Adv.)
.. APPELLANTS.
AND: g "
" Naga;afii11a';:
%ea..z;e3 Years»,
W/$('yPapa_€'ah;' "
Reddyhalli «V;3.1age',
Kasai)
V .BANGARPE'I"I'ALUK - 563 114.
a Hobli; '
(By'Sr:.13.Veerappa, Adv.)
*_*_*_*_*w*w*
. . RESPONDENT.
property purchased by him under Sale Deed dated 27.05.1987
which is produced and marked as Ex.P–l are totally different. it is
also his Case that the plaintiff has not sought any relief. the
second defendant, therefore the suit as Joe
dismissed. I _
6. With these rival content1ons,:=»._th€_’A’*i§%iai’=.Col1irt'”ffa.;I1’e:€1i the”: 5
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff -proves 15′
defendant exe_o’uted’lAtheVA agreernent of sake dt.
27.5.87 withlV.resp’ee11;:-‘ ,”_s;uit:__ schedule
property? ‘V _ ”
2. if .._W’hetherl proves that she is ready
a4n’dV_iWi1,l.ir1g to perform her part of the contract
V ‘ under”th.e___agreernent?
the plaintiff proves that she is in
so”
if possession and enjoyment of the suit
. property?
” Whether the plaintiff proves the interference
‘ by defendants?
vi
and held issue Nos.1 to 4 infthe
affirmative in favour of the sepcondfvcdefendantf tandtclismissed the
suit of the plaintiff, Preferred an appeal
in R.A.No.104/2C)Q1..’on;gthe’_:f7i1e.::gof.f”_{3i3(il “pf-.*f1’idge [Sr.Dn.], K.G.F.,
wherein the €Fi19st__ framed the following points
Whether the 2″” defendant proves that he is’–a
bonafide purchaser as contended in his W’S’:?~.._
To what relief the parties are entitled”-to?’ d
What order or decree? I
for cons:ideratior1,’_–.
1.
« ‘*–WhevthVer_ Trialfcourt erred in believing the
* -V _ experttopxinion?
Whether Triai Court erred in not giving
W,_’the.r_re_asons for not accepting the evidence of
“‘ to 4?
Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial
V ‘ Court calls for any modification at the hands
of this Court? WT
What order’?
and held point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in favour of the
plaintiff, based on the Commissioners report and” to
reverse the finding of the Trial Court so far as
sale is concerned and held that tlie” ‘plaintiff
execution of agreement of sale dated ‘A
defendant, who is the first appellant before and held
that the plaintiff is entitledto spe-cific per-fto1’znancve,.of suit schedule
property in his favour. nbieing aggrieved by the
same, have come up ?0eforeflthisf::Cour:t- in this appeal.
7. of thisfffCfourt framed the following two
substantial epuestions admitted the appeal:
~ _ Whether flower Appellate Court is
V’ justified’ i’1rreversing the judgment and decree
rn():f.”lL’}l€’ Trial Court dismissing the suit of the
TA'”_redspdorident/plaintiff for specific performance
agreement of sale without taking into
consideration the report of the hand writing
“*1
expert?
number. Admittedly the said survey number is measuring “13 acres.
out of which an extent of 2 1/2 acres is covered under..E1§;_D:’fi’;V;~ of
the said extent, in the land belonging to first defendant
formed more than l5–20 sites and hejhas”agre.ed lone: oxfithef’
sites to the plaintiff, the second defendarltl
the 15-20 sites formed by firstV::d.efend’an_t
number. Except for the reasons ‘there are tioyvindveipendent site
number given to the Site’s’;-..v’4:’;e.4′! in favour of second
defendant and site given {nothing to show that
the said two Oné Therefore, the First
Appellate uldvecreeing the suit as against
second to execute Sale Deed of the
site purchased V of plaintiff along with first
appellant in the o’rigin.alAAsi1it.-as if the said site is suit schedule site.
“To eitterit. thew-Judgment and Decree passed by the First
l’VAppVellate–v_Cou.rt”»is required to be modified. Regarding third
sub-sta.Iitial’alquestion of law, as already discussed above, the
V .identificat’ion’vof suit schedule property and the property sold in
,,”_”‘—favoizr of second defendant under EX..I3»~l are totally different by
i.th’e_fdes’cription of the boundaries provided in the plaint schedule
% witseif. Further there is no relief claimed by the plaintiff as against
We