ADDL. II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
O.S./732/2007 BOLLACHANDRA BELLIAPPA SUBBAIAH. V/S V.JADEESHA@ SADGURU JAGGI
VASUDEV.
THE Brief facts from the plaintiff copy, it is submitted that, the plaintiff was looking to purchase an
agricultural plot at which point of time the plaintiff came across the offer of the defendant to sell the
property much described in the schedule as poultry farm at sy.no.90/5 of Yelwala village and hobli,
taluk having 2.25 acres along with two erected sheds and consisting of a built area in 53sqs brooder
equipment open well and power connection. Plaintiff and the defendant which resulted in evolution
of the agreement to sell dated 27-07-1987.
As per plaintiff copy the sale consideration was agreed to be at Two lakhs fifty two thousand only.
The defendant declared that he had raised loan of 1,67,000 the plaintiff agreed to clear the said debt
as per agreement the said liability on the plaintiff was treated as inclusive and the part and parcel of
the consideration for the contract.
As per the performance, the defendant handed over the possession of the plaint schedule property
to the plaintiff as on the date of execution of the agreement.
The cause of action also arose on 17-3-2007 when the first defendant in violation of his contractual
commitment sold the plaint schedule property to the second defendant.
PRAYER. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for a judgement end decree against the defendant as
mentioned for relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27-1-1987 in directing
the defendant to execute a Regd Deed of Sale in the name and favour of the plaintiff.
THE Brief facts of the defendant written statement, this defendant is represented by his advocate
sri A.S.Nataraj. By means of a registered GPA executed by the defendant infavour of
M.S.Rajarathinam on12-3-2007.
The defendant denies the several allegations of the plaint that is the address of the planintiff given in
the cause title is false. It is false that on 27/7/1987 defendant to sell the suit schedule property to
the plaintiff.
It is false to allege that the defendant no.1 agreed to handover all the original documents. It is false
to allege that as part performance defendant no.1 handed over possession of the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff on the date of the execution of the agreement.
The recital of handing over of possession has been deliberately incorporated in fabricated
agreement dated 27-7-1987. The matter is that defendant no 1 did agree to sell the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff on 3-7-1986 which fact has been deliberatively suppressed by the plaintiff in
the course of the plaint averments. The sale consideration agreed was only 2,35,000 and on the date
of execution of the agreement only a sum of 25000 was paid in advance.
The consideration for sale of the land was 2,35,000. The defendant received Rs 25000 in advance
with condition that the remaining amout Rs 2,10,000 should be paid before 1-9-1986. The
agreement holder Mr.Subbaiah did not show any interest to finalize the sale transactions and three
cheques issued by him bounced for want of sufficient balance in his bank statement.
The defendant sold the suit schedule property in favour of Ruckmini Karthikeyan. On2-8-2011.By
registered sale deed.
The Judgement dated 29-2-1992 as per the orders, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recovery the suit
loan of 79000 along with an interest at the rate of 12 and half per annum.The liability of the
defendants 1 and 2 are given 6 months time to clear of the amount due.If the bank is entitled to
recover the amount due on the charge and by the sale of the property shown in schedule B of the
Plaint. If for any valid reason the said properties cannot be sold or sale proceeds is found to be
insufficient in that event the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the amount due from the defendants
1 and 2 personally.
REGULAR APPEAL NO: 162 OF 2021.
Being highly aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree dated 13-9-2021, the appellants begs to
prefer the present appeal on various grounds.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
The learned Trial Judge has extracted certain portions of deposition of the plaintiff and concluded
that this witness was not present in the course of execution of the sale agreement and hence the
evidence is not credible.
The learned trial Judge has picked out certain entries made in the sale agreement which are hand
written and concludes that doubt is created with respect to the case of the plaintiff in respect of
execution of sale agreement.
The learned trial judge has failed to appreciate or comment upon ex.p. registered GPA executed by
the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
The arguments from both sides dated------ and the case is final judgement on 31-12025.(RR Appeal).
