E3 THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(x3AL1.'..T}}{§'~;."A« K
Dated this the 22" day offlctober, 2002: . gj "" '
Befcrrc I
27113 HUMBLE MR JUSTICE g::.m%:4z;; é' % 1§;wEs1;%:" A . A
Regular Fa-m:Ap;:g;&..V12153'",'.zc;agT'
Bgtmeen: '
N Devadas Pakkala, 50 yrs
Sic late Mahabaia Pakkala r x
if 1821, ICmss, Smlpatxgrmna Nagar... _ '
Bangaiore 560 027 _
(By Sri M .1 Alva, A¢.:;; ~ 51 " j
And: ""
1 Smt B §.,1~.4;1g.::-ati7ni'az:§m:a,~ 'A % 5
W/9 late Subbarnxa, 89 ._ " é "
South End 3 Cross,
69 ~ V '
V " sm£}.Ashn%smghi. 48 %%%%% « "
V' we Sanjajz xmm Singmi
' 18:"1_._ };'F10t:s15,"!nCr:)ss
"' Hagar, Bangakrrc 27 mpondenm
T} -V: (By Sri K sutsaa Adv.)
, " .. }3irs{Appea1 is filed under s.95 & Order 41, Rule Lcpc praying
"-.to"a:et'a_sia*.:io_ the judgnent and decree of dismissal dated 25.7.2007 by the XI
= . .. 3661-. Ci-igy Civil Judge, Bmmlore in as 4449:1995.
T " u First Appeal coming cm for Haaring this day, fize Court delivered
1 L' j ii-'65 . foilowi:ng:
DR"
JUDGMENT
This appeai is by the p1aintifi’ seeking for setting
and decree pamed by the XI Addl. City Civi1’Jfidge, Bimggiziiwéiivaii isizdey V J
in 03 4144051995 dismissing the suit for specific -.
The plaintifi is said to be in miiupgfion iifflic of ‘
the premises bearing No.18/1 situate ,::l’5_Cros;s;, «.
Bangalore which is dmzcribedv _The plaintifl” was said
to be 2 ii’ on a monthly rent of
Rs.800/-. obtaining iicense from the
competenfvv.Aatn3:ori§_ir,iV a’ Service Station. 1: is also further
avmred moififi 1995, defendant started dsemanding the
plaixztifili “vacate over vacant possession of the ssshedule A
in that he intensis ta dispose of the entire building, The
as B Schedule consisting of gonad floor which is
_ the A”acherii1ie;.i:”The ground floor is measuring east-wmt 18 feet and north-
33 iesi: According to the plaintfi’; he refused to vacate the same and
purchase the building fem” a peasmmble consideration. It is his case
the 1″ afcndzmt had agecd to sci} the B schedule propelty and in this
Liiregard, taiks were held on 12.2.1995 in the presence of various persons
including some Advocate and a Chartered Accotmtzm. At flnat time, the 1″
AV
speculative [one and accordingly, resisted the suit. Based on the ___above
pleadings, the trial court framed me following issues:
1 Whether the plaintiff preves that the 1″ defendant aga-ea-ugi :ojV;~.ejiL£:§¢fi_f A” * .._V
Schedule propcny for a consideration of 33.4 lacs? ” = — .: ‘ b
2 Whether the piaintifi’ proves that as a af .«
paid a mm: of Rs.l,06l!- advnncg to tlxaff dafendan ‘E’ ‘~ . «.
3 Whefner the plaintifi’ proves a’v.1Lat:fieM»is to ” V
perform his part of conmmt? V V _ & ‘
4 Whether the plaintiff m;%a.¢ ,£1’§tf0uI of 25″ «Megan: by
the 1″‘ defendant is null ax1c’n_roid?__v ‘ T.” .. % _
5 Whether the 4g:il3§ntifi:”j5tévé§;: eistiuea for specific
perfonnarxccfirf fig;-agaaéumnt -sf V.
6 Whfi11er_ ::§5’g;sa;n;;:r%pn«§esMna.a: he is entitled for the declaration in
respect cm: sale of 2°” defendant?
7 V “p:*(§=ires that he is entitled for permanent
igujunqtion ” ‘
AV
§> f four vvimassw were examined and about thirteen
marked and on behaif of the respondent, two witnesses
me! got marked about in all, eighteen documents. After
while answering the relevant issues in favour cf the defendants,
VT “ihv2-.”t:1’ial court dismissed file suit. Hence, this appeal.
ya,
Advocate depicts that Rs. 5 hes has been mentioned as such, there is no
consensus adidem between flxe panics. When there is no such unity ofmind
as to me sefling of me propeny in favour of the plaizafiif by the ~ u
when there is no centres! or agreement, it cannot be
afier thought by the plasma” to knock oif me ‘V
resisted the appeai.
In the light efthe angurnents wouléi arise for
consideration is whether there exist.$fa.va¥i§i the parties to
execute the propeny by .1.'”vdefe;::Ie:gt.i:fi whether the
trial court ig.*’_;:;’§ni2e;&V:es;: fee of the plaintiff and then
cfisatnissing sixit bf fizhefiler the trial court is justified in
holding that was ‘ and willing to perform his pen of
E wheidier…fl:e.’u~ial com! is justified in holding that the
have so the saie made in favour of the 2″‘ defendant is null and
V is mtitled for a decree of specific performance and
ferapemxane .
AA theuoilt set it is seen, as rightly argued by the teamed counsel for
« nothing has been mentioned about the token advance paid by
to the 1″ defendant in a sum ef Rs.1001f- and also existence of
\,/
aiso regarding justification of sale in favour of 2″ defendant:
defendant, the same cannot be interfered with at this stage as
on the part of the plaintiff to demonstrate t11,a.t..a._\_{ziid mfg.’ V’
existence bctwecn the plaintiff and I” T ~
In the circumstances, the appeal it dismissed.
Parties :6 beat their own costs; v ” ‘ L