High Court Karnataka High Court

Tahera Bi vs G Ramesh on 24 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Tahera Bi vs G Ramesh on 24 August, 2009
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
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/~

 .....