Karnataka High Court
Tahera Bi vs G Ramesh on 24 August, 2009
BE! WEEN
1
of
I RFA NO.472/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 24"' DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA SWEPTIX/iI_OY...G_G'~..Vv
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.472 OF 2'.Q:_(._.}_#_'2;V'V"'~.O: _
SMT. TAHERA BI
WIFE OF KYUSUFF BARY
MAJOR *
JANAB YZYAKUB
SON OF K.YUsUFFf;RARy'* _ A
MAJOR ~ = A
sMT.NAF1sAB1 RE O
WIFE OF 1s:.m§UFi: B.AR'Y ..
SON OF._K.YUSUFF»*BARY
MAJOR A _
BARE" *
V RSON 'QF_fD.DINABBA
A
7_ALLAjRL"fi'1::ai3s1D1NO OF UPPALLI VILLAGE,
KANOAVARA POST, CHIKMAGALUR
TALOK AND DISTRICT CHICKMAGALUR
A APPELLANTS
V. SR1: SHARANAPPAfilWI'1'UR es: N.S BHAT, ADV.)
4 RFA NG472/2002
The plaintiff though was ready and wilting to perform his
part of the contract, the defendant No.1 for one or the
other pretext denied the same. It is later learnt that"*.the
defendant No.1 has sold the property to defendantsy'Vt';2__'__'ti)
Violating the conditions of the agreement the"? t
plaintiff filed the suit for specific per;forI:Iie1tn(:'e.r, it ' ' K i
(ii) All the defendants filedjafi 'eomtr'n.o1--1_
statement denying the plaint Va'uet:nent.s;._ exee_'i_1tioVn"'of5the it
agreement, receipt of V :i?s.7O5t*3UC'L/Iii Vwttand haiidihg over
possession of the suit spending of
Rs.25.00(.l/-- The first defendant's
husband was the and he used to borrow money
from the" plainti-ffand father to do contract work,
av'VdefenrdVantE""'N0::i.__and filer husband borrowed Rs.25,000/-, i
signatures on the blank stamp papers
V it and also c-heqtites. Though the cheques were given in the
the defendant. they have not been encashed.
defendant delayed to repay the amount, the
T "-plaintiff has created the agreement. On 17/6/1994 the
'defendant entered into an agreergxent with defendants 2 to
5 RFA NO.-472/2002
6 and on 21/ 11/1994 sold the same under three different
sale deeds to defendants 2 to 6 and possession was also
handed over on receipt of Rs. 1,5(),OO0/--. Hence;
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(iii) On behalf of the plaintiff, G K
Manjegowda, Somashekhara are
and documents EXP} to P9-..__areV"ernarigeciut the
defendants side defendant Ui11rne'1*..V:t_F'arooq and
defendant No.6 K Yusuff iyeiie as I)W--1 and
2 and documents ExiD1
(iv) Zlfhe Tritai,-féourt.ffonsidering the above materials
on record pleased to"-..c.decree the suit directing the
._,defenda1ntseA. 1(a) to 6 to execute the sale deed in
and directing the defendant No.1(a) to
deposited in the Bank by the plaintiff
and onkfajingreftof the defendants Ma) and 2 to 6 to execute
saiegdeed, the plaintiff could apply and obtain the sake
appointing Commissiofler from the Court at his
6 RFA NO/372/2002
cost. Being aggrieved, the defendants 2 to 6 have filed this
appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties:
5. The point that arises for my;..consideratioin. liirthis ll'
appeal is as to whether the judgmentpa151@i*~dec1*ee
the Court below suffers from _ V
6. It is submitted for the
appellants that in spite__V_ 2 to 6
specifically conteiitionwin the written statement
that the sold the property in their
favour, the plaintiff not make necessary amendment
finaking suitable prayer in the suit. No doubt it
is of the judgment that the defendants 2
V it to 6 are not the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule
V"B:ut it is without a proper prayer in the suit. In
the" circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree are
to be set aside and the matter requires to be
llremanded to the Trial Court with liberty reserved to the
K
7 RFA NO.472/2002
parties to file amendment application and to adduce
additional evidence both documentary and oral if they are
so advised.
'7. In the result, this appeai is aiioweéd. _":i1f1i}Vf$i;g_r;ed,_ it
judgment and decree are hereby
stands remitted to the Triai 'for re'Co_nside.ratioi1V~.V "The " it
parties are at liberty to {naked-"nVet;*es'sary 'app1.ic:;:tion for
amendment and lead they are so
advised. The tjovvdtttreconsider the
matter and as expeditiously as
p0g,sib1e_ tttt thetmraarties are directed to
maintain qua '4 it
sd/~
.....