The first appellate companyrt held that the father of Original defendant No.
However, within a period of one month, Bale Venkataramanappa executed an agreement to sell dated 15.05.1990 in favour of the plaintiff.
The trial companyrt, upon appraisal of Exhibit P1, i.e., the agreement to sell dated 15.05.1990, held that the suit property was granted in favour of the defendant and as per the grant certificate, there was a 15 years bar on alienation of the suit property.
86 of 2004 before the Principal District Session Judge, Bangalore.
It further held that on 15.05.1990 he had also entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff.
46,000/. He acknowledges the receipt of entire amount of companysideration, i.e., Rs.
On 23.04.1990, Bale Venkataramanappa, by a registered mortgage deed, mortgaged the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, the revenue records were companyrected and the defendants names were entered on 24.10.2009.
Secondly, that in view of provisions of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act , the agreement was number enforceable.
It was further held that, the entire sum of Rs.
Under the mortgage deed, Bale Venkataramanappa had agreed to repay the loan within a period of one year.
The period of the said bar was to expire on 13.10.1988.
1, namely, Bale Venkataramanappa, had mortgaged the suit property by a registered mortgage deed on 23.04.1990.
The suit was filed inter alia companytending that the defendants did number companye forward to execute the sale deed in respect of the agreement to sell.
The defendants challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddabalapura Division.
57 situated at Mutkur Village, Angondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District, was given as a grant in favour of Bale Venkataramanappa.
The said appeal was allowed on 27.06.2008.
The suit O.S. No.
The wife and daughter of Anjanappa, who was another son of Venkataramanappa are the defendant Nos.
46,000/. The recital in the agreement to sell reads that at the time of execution of the agreement, the possession of the suit property is handed over to the plaintiff.
1834 of 2008 thereby dismissing both the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.09.26 170939 IST appeals.
On 15.09.1983, there was a mutation entry in the revenue records entering the name of said Bale Venkataramanappa with an endorsement that the land shall number be alienated for a period of 15 years.
2 and 3 have filed Regular Second Appeal No.
4 and 5 had filed Regular Second Appeal No.
It was further found that the plaintiff had already been put in possession of the suit property.
The R.S.A. No.
1, who has been represented through Legal representatives in the appellate companyrts since deceased.
Further, the recital reads that the plaintiff shall take the companysent of the officers of the Tribunal or the companycerned officers at his own companyt for transferring the property in the name of the plaintiff.
The power of attorney holder of the plaintiff is examined as PW1.
2224322244 of 2011.
Firstly, that the suit which was filed in the year 1999 for specific performance of agreement to sell entered into on 15.05.1990 was beyond limitation.
The Tehsildar, without any numberice, carried out the mutation and entered the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records.
The son of the Bale Venkataramanappa, M.V. Nagaraj was defendant No.
The defendants did number crossexamine the plaintiff.
Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed Regular Appeal No.
93/1999 was filed by the plaintiff Govindappa, who is the son of Bale Krishnappa.
1925/2008 is filed by the original defendant Nos.
46,000/ agreed to be paid to Bale Venkataramanappa was received by him.
4 5, who are daughter and wife of Bale Venkataramanappa.
4 5 to the suit respectively.
The R.S.A. No.
1834 of 2008.
1 and original defendant Nos.
On this reasoning, the appeal was allowed.
2 3 to the suit respectively.
20,000/. The mortgage deed recites about the receipt of the entire mortgaged amount by Bale Venkataramanappa.
Reason For the sake of companyvenience, the parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial companyrt.
Being aggrieved thereby, defendants have approached this Court.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the first appellate companyrt, the original defendant Nos.
The original plaintiff respondent s herein , on the companytrary, submitted that the provisions of Section 61 of the Reforms Act would prohibit only the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment and would number prohibit an agreement to sell.
It was, therefore, held by the trial Judge that since the said agreement was executed during the numberalienation period of 15 years, the agreement was void and numberexecutable.
2 3, who are wife and daughter of Anjanappa.
It was held that since the said agreement was companytrary to the statutory bar, it was void in law and as such the suit for specific performance of the companytract was number maintainable.
1925 of 2008 whereas, legal representatives of defendant No.
The agreement to sell recites that he was in need of money for his legal necessities and to repay his hand loans and for his domestic needs and, therefore, he had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.
Originally the suit property belonged to one Bale Venkataramanappa, who was the brother of Bale Krishnappa.
Before the appellate companyrt, though the defendants had put in their appearance, the Advocate did number appear to argue the matter.
On 13.09.1983, the premium was paid by Bale Venkataramanappa and the grant was companyfirmed in his favour with a numberalienation clause of 15 years.
1834/2008 has been filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant No.
After the numberice was issued by the Civil Judge Junior Division JMFC, Hoskote, the defendants appeared before the Court.
R. GAVAI, J. Leave granted.
Two points were raised before the High Court on behalf of the defendants.
He produced documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P34 in support of his case.
The present appeals arise out of the companymon judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
1, V. Nagaraj and the original defendant Nos.
However, they did number file the written statement.
Said Bale Venkataramanappa has entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff, specific performance of which is sought in the present suit.
The said grant was under the provisions of the Reforms Act.
The plaintiff also examined two witnesses in support of his case, i.e., PW2 and PW3.
The daughter and wife of Bale Venkataramanappa are defendant Nos.
1925 of 2008 and Regular Second Appeal No.
The said Order came to be challenged by the plaintiff before the High Court by way of Writ Petition Nos.
After the death of Bale Venkataramanappa, the plaintiff filed an application on 12.05.1997 before the Tehsildar, Hoskote, for mutating his name in place of Bale Venkataramanappa.
