. H H . .»v\.\>§\s\.xk§.3…
2, ’31:: éefendam: being aggrieved jbyfihe V_ef§;’
juégmsnf; and decrea passes’; by ”
directing him :0 pay the arixranzzfi ‘ar:1Qutii ;: V _}
Rs.1,7€},(}{}0/« paid by ihffi p1ainti§;f’a§i{h_ u in1:<*;:b1'"'€:f~'»_u'i:: sit {fie
rate of 9% preferred Cr0$$ ~
3. The brief facts of the c’as€*a::”–:_é1s5fG ‘t3V”V’.’:”su: _
The appeilarytifgalaintiffv» fii§%d’* for
specific ‘fiééd 8-3» 1995
and also tcj the balance 0f
sale cns§:i§1eféi:i:it;i*.;__V_o§f Efivnd to execute the
sale deed property. In the
plaint, it is cai§3;ez§d’ed”.théivi ffiié defendant is the owner cf
‘tbs s:;fl;ed.1;1e ;;;i*dpe’:*ty. He agreed to sell the am:
tie the plaintiff for a sale
cnn.si%i’.§é:;ativ<j}:i.v'V'–: wRs.3,35.DOC3,/'V~ and accordingiy the
'§¢'fend%r:t i' jegfiécuted an agreement sf sale ciateé
L favczxr 01' the giaintiff. 3&5 per ihe terms and
__ "€€3n{§iii<2r2s mentienesi in the said agreameni, 3: 81%
/W
i R: /*
time sf executing the agreement Gf 3.2116, the
paid part of the sale cansideraiion axxzouxif ::§f. '
Rs.5,GGQ/~ to 1,316 defendant. FUI'{hE§1"hfi"It3< piaintifi'
is ;:3a:; 3 sum sf Rs.65§0§{},/~ t0u2ard§'.Vp.é;_"iA"bf
cansideration Within 15~3w19Q£3–_,_V'ém_d :*éma.:i3.i;ig.,_ S3193'
cansiderataon has to be paid on o:..héfcq}evv3Q~5.?1'9§§A
plaintiff. I '
4. As per tihé jéakiéjvtcikaéea’8~3~1995, the
plaintiff ~ ‘tiiévjdafendant before
the uritne;Sse’s:”_ the same on the
agreement (}*’f”§?;’2I 1t3f_f¥I;§I’_1£€1#§7ii1§é_.”T€C€iV€C§ the ‘said amount.
Gut b3i£i:1’ICf3: vSaI’E consicieratitm, the piaintiff
a- csf Rs. 1,oo,<300/- an 30~*5–1995* The
é1efé11dan: '21.iso~ ggfiorsed tha same an the agreement
" befo1;e.'4the'5;¢ii:_i;t§3A[ses. While endorsing seccsnd time, {he
– __d»:tfencia§itv__V___§ias cieariy mentioned that if there is any
L respect 9:” the sczlheduie preperty, he xxfsaié
anether siié Vméasurirzg 136″ x 32″ were purchased hy i:h_.–;:’~.
bmther of défendani: Mailappa in the public a12r:ti:;’:::..’I’z§’ ‘7’
the famiiy partition the said iws sitesygfiere aEi§iii:};c«£.i’_~1:{:§’=.
the defendant ané defendant entared i:}t0:_an.Sagix-::é12§é:inf” A’
with the plaintiff to sell the prezje-rties,
never enxzmached the preperty £6″ —
Municipality, Mulbagil.
txied to interfere his suit in
O.S.Na,5£38/199$’ ‘got:1.jnj::§11;;€:tib.r;:£§i*dz=fi?_.T:2i,éainst the
Tewn iiétci withcirawn
the said isiiii; of that the
mea8uren%é:r3£”c’;f tizjefi extent than an the
spot is total?”-Qicorfect.”fI’1′:§17a}1egati0n of the” plaintiff
_.. mat t.§a€’.:.d¢fendanf “had___:m2srepresent:2d him at the time
c}§ee1;;iia:1’Qi”s;iie__deed is 315:} denied. Though the time
is contract, the plaintiff was not ready’
‘ 3.116 giérfgrnz his part cf the centract and as an
fie Wags havmg 0:113; R5,}-,Q0,GGG.f~ am
43/»
«_ ‘7, ba”s-is__Q_f_f,he pleadings of the parties, the 5
~ %:>§:1<:w«f_fa,r:1ed the following issues:
on persuasion of Panchayatdaars and
w1:ime was extended iii} 5~7~1995§;
extendad period aiscx the plaintiff V’
with the balance Sale: Consideirazfifiiab.
motzey paid by the plainfijff aficia ‘ag-:ee;£1€r:{
of sale was rescinded a§’ égr 1-84995.
The allegaticsn the lirfiéfendant i3
trying to 1§« “£}$ta113r incorrect
and mi§’;1§:faf.#;ii:1.é:-_– of $2116: has been
cancel)-gd c_3*;2x }.£fv)i9fi,’12;_§:éi1<1y~af£er two years thereafter,
the suit'I1a%é, betécn is no causfi of action for
the suit ancfthérefch:-"r€: .Se:31,:1.ght for dismissal of the suit.
{1} V. .’:’iF:§g?i1T;3ther the plaintiff proves the suit
agféemeni of saie dated 8-3~ 199%?
;1,,»
3* The piaimiff in ardsr to pmve his cast:
himsezif as P.W.1 and exarnined We ether .
?.w.2 and F.W.3 and marked the dGCL1me:n’::;-.é;é”.EiX;.§,’~3.’b »
{:3 Ex.P.9. {)1} behalf of me ae£i§§;da §:: «:21?
examinéd himself as D.W. »_and ‘gf<§%;~..»exa::§i:i1ué& izanég.
Krishnappa as D.W.2 and g0t’i:12:{‘1*1:z3ci t:'{“1€’.{Vk)”C1;E:I1(‘:i;£}ZSVélS
T ;E1:2s:.D 1 to
9, The Trial era} and
d0cumenta;y?._.:v駒?i§if3E¥3€3»§5~H’§ Hid’ “”” “refund the eaxnest money cf
interest at the ram: 9f 9% pa. from
:fh::; fiiat*:~; ‘£331′: iii} repayznent and tiaereecl the suit in
part i;s.~?’iV1’;i*:;. Casi.
10. Being aggrieved by the gudgment ané decree dated
28« 1~2CJQ5. the plaintiff preferred this appea}.
11. The defendant in the suit being_Jag,g:ieved”by ‘
judgment and decree dated 28~i~2OO5-;4insg’ofa§: A’
decreeing the suit with cost andV’é§i’;gVct§ng-the
to pay Rs.1,’70,000/- with interest fit-:ha?VV:ate’of_VQ0k$
from the date of suit till ths3I:c1ateA__of ;p:iym;e.£::.1n full and
that there shall be A21 charge..(§’n–»thé about
the said a1nour1t§._.:fi1e%d»V’ f_}1s=; ‘ ” –
12. Sri.G;Pa§§fre€idj%;;:A:]ea:*1§edV’céunsgzlfiappearing for the
appe1}ant ‘¢contefitiefij-~ ‘jfidgment and decree
passed by tlié: ..g:d*u.rt b§:.’1}:nfJ “is ‘g;=0411trary to law and facts of
{the Caé:§.V T313 p1Vé.intiff was always ready and vvilling ts
the contract, however, the defendant
W513 Vé§.{adif1g”_’:Q ééieétute the sale dead. The plaintiff has
. gm: s1iffici:§rit’rfieans and bank baiance as on the éaie sf
V’A44″‘a;§{:<::r::#.::i<)riV"t;§f the sale deed. The finding sf the court
Aw
19
Judge {Jr.{)n.} Muibagii, seeking fer perxnaneni .
restraining the: ciefendanis frcam aiienafizig az1;iAA4é:;cé1n1’£§e1’i§1§.VV ‘V
the suit: schedule prcxperty to the p1;1i_ntiff fishcflis the $€*. :*,o 11*d’
defendant in the Sufi; er any other pé1’*sL;§:;V.»’1’h€.’1’rI;11
ité Judgment and decree dated 29» ‘€i<{<.:ree{':i«'
suit and restrained the first"4'(l'*3:fé:n<f1:13;%.V§Tr$ii§L §;J'fi§11a§1ng SILCE
encumhering the of the
second defendagt the plaintiff
was a party tc; judgment and
decree is the defendant.
The plainfiff facts, filed the suit.
Further, he w.’~;is*«.n.0t rea:i}3:.aLi91d…%;&ri11ing to perform his part of
” L116 as hé “Wa§___not: ready with the balance sale
figonsideratiotz.Aancfiame excuse has been taken that there is
son:e”d._ivspiite”_in__thééite and the dimension is lesser. Hence,
V _the: plétintifi; is. fiat entitled for any decree: and sought for
‘ é ‘ 1 ‘ -..dis:nissa1..Gf1:ihe appeal.
5″,
‘)”2
4.4
suggesticsn made by the defendant that; as an 5–‘f~}995
he did net had the anlaunt to pay the baiamze
consideration. Further, deposed that as
ccndition 0f the agreement, if ihe ps1z:;intViff’ fa:i ::s_ it}
the balance saie consideration, the advajncé –am0u:1.i;_ «;:}an ‘
be forfeited, however, the (if3f€I}fii’é§I:it’.}1iII1.SE:1.ffiV
ready to execute the sale ‘flggd. £~1e5 thg
balance sale consideratioI3y’ii:_’ for a
period of 45 days , that he
has not Further.
the wife,» t ti*$e…v”§defendant filed
O.S.N0.4£;§6_’/19’9′?;v gym; first defendant has
no right to uésiierxaté’ the. prfiperty. In that suit. the
4….p1aintiff;. {Mas »-.n:1vg1de_ as party and he engaged
A’=Sr:.M..L.Ve:fi}:at.:§Sh_ as his Advocate and ha was :10:
aV§?aré[.–.Qf dated 29~11~2€)03 passed in the
V asaid firtfier, he has depoged that he never asksfi
‘n:fund”‘ ;:3f the amoum: on the ground that $116
ASK,/’N
Mr”
3′
<3
§
¥
.§:
\\\.
‘\\
§
§.
§
3′-3
§.
t
:
E
_. &..3c1>.<:.s\.s3.«..(\:.. :" . ' ' ' ' . .. .. . . ' ' ' ' . . ' " . ..
1’5
pregent when {he iransaciion {ask piace. in gimme Z995;
aiong with the piaintiff he went in tha defendants _.__ A4
requesting him :0 execute saie cieed, in ”
examination nething is meniioned abfinxt tffié X
sf Cash of R5:..1,f3’5,0{}Q,f~.
17′. The defendant examined as
reiterated the averrnents ‘it; ‘t}:i§§z»:v;z?i’V§?tj’;:e.:§’:statement.
Ha 33:36 deposed that th<§-A'V*p1%ii::tif:f' am}
willing to perfgfifi of is the
essence of V» of sale, the
plaintiff Igas sé1.:iveVVVV(':vansideratior; on or
before 9:'-1:35 the said date, he has
paid 4'V;i:1d."ses 1:i.ght for extension sf time.
¥:fi~1Q’35
_ r€és:%::§:’3.§’;f&.§..v” Further, in 0.S.N£;.–
18. On Consideration sf o1*23.Z:”r.anC2 ‘f’1(}{;2lII?£C¥}’1’CE’1:I’.’;”~v
evidence it is clear that thafig plaintiff ‘e:j1ier.é’ci’ivx”:;§Q H35;/5*:
agreement of sale: with the the terms
and conditions of thg agrgemgzfit €):f:;.ai§pe11ant
had to pay or before
30-54995. essence of
contract. by the plaintiff,
the time v§*a.s’exté11<jVéc§ v5_¥'7.:.1995 to pay the balance
of sale cgnsidérationf' .H0w<?:Vi¥§r, the appellanf, has not
" 'come fgjiward 1:0 pay'Vth<:—-«baIance sale consideration, on
'the .nfhe;*" A h»9 raised objections regarding lesser
diménéion of 'éhje ééite on the spot and existence cf some
' e:1iVspuie:'' fiegwéen the respondent and 'U36 Town
Ifiuxiiéipnajlitfs Muibagii. Hemca ii is ciear thai the
was not read}! and willing to perform his par?
f
5;’ \ A/x’
if if?
2%
reafiy and willing fie perform his part of {he .;.
with the baianee sale consideration. AeeQrfiiiig1:g*;V«T.f;ve_
hold that there is no infirmity :3: irreggiieriifizj’ m”–:i*:.e’H,A
finding of the 00111″: below on iesue Ni;-eA3′.U
20, Though the respondent righf’ :1:r9_’i;:itieV}()ver
the suit schedule Vprepertig. _e1fii;ered into an
agreement of sale with_th:e_;”1995 for a
saie c0r1sic1ez_”V21’t’i’ci::j;*2:.’Vr3{ wife and
chfldren ief 8. suit in
O.S.N0.’4li8./ the ‘file .df”‘the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.}
Mulbagil, “$’eeki§i§Tf0:I* injunction restraining
the defenV€ia1} te;.frernVé1hen;;’iting the said property. In the
Saj:Li~;”:.S1eli;A1L, the was the second defendant and
» an advocate on his behalf. The court
‘beiaw é1fte’_r. __t1*§2:i, decreed the said suit and restrained
the”*–:ie£eii(i.3:§1ts from alienating the said property. The
judgmerxé and decree made in O.S.No.44€:}/ 1§97′ has not
” ehaliengeeii either by the first deferidani or by the
fiw
gg,
2;.)
perform his parf, 0f the contract, The judgments; reiieé
upan by Sri.Papiredéy’ are net applieabie in the facts ,,
the present case. In the instant case, initiafly the deiee. he
was fixed as 3{)~5~1995. Oh the requesf”0″fthe V
it was extended to 5~7~1995. Hence, it thhéé; _ ”
time is the essence of contract. Fhtther, “the ‘pjaintiff
himself was not ready with ‘E:a_lanc:’e”‘vSa1€’§
consideration and has dernanding
execution of the sa.}e_§ieed oeiiyh the
judgments re1;e’di”‘ are not
applicable There is no
infirmity the __deeree passed by the
court below,’ “wfhc31feii: below held that the
_p1aintiffnot re’2i::1:§?é’1ndv’wi1Iing to perform his part of
“thee fixecordingly, Point No.1 is heki against
the” .. – . V .7
/J”
: )9
ix
23. H€’I’1{3€. we confirm the judgment and ciec;feé:°=
passed by the ceurt bsiow and tha agperal as: wj:?:.1_i_
Crossappeal filed by the respcndeni: are liabifi. ”
difimissmd,
24. Accordingly, we pass the i'(:1,:1.iii2xzin&.g{:V. V
The appea} as W61} dismissed.
Parties téi) befiar jfihéixf c(§S:§.”–
Sd/~
JUDGE
.H S&f*
JUDGE
fl}g:}k’;!’*V”‘.:~ .