Therefore, the power of attorney itself had number been proved in terms of Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 hereinafter called Act 1872 and, thus the question of proceeding further by the Trial Court companyld number arise.
The said agreement was duly registered and according to the terms incorporated therein, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12.1980.
To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to.
The appellant plaintiff allegedly paid the balance amount on 15.5.1980.
The judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside for the reasons that geographical location of the property or inadequate companysideration and rise escalation of price during the pendency of the case in companyrt cannot be the grounds for reversal of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The alleged payment of Rs.65,500/ or Rs.40,000/ as a sale companysideration is numberhing but mis representation by showing forged receipts prepared by the appellant in companylusion with the son of the alleged power of attorney holder at the time of litigation with D. Narendra.
There can be numberjustification for number giving effect to the registered agreement to sell.
Thus, the appellant plaintiff issued numberice to the respondent on 5.3.1980 through his lawyer.
Thus, at the most, the appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,000/ but the question of decreeing the suit companyld number arise.
The respondent failed to take necessary steps to act according to the agreement.
265 of 1999 before the High Court of Karnataka which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.2.2004.
He never paid any companysideration.
The respondent denied the execution of any power of attorney in favour of his brother with regard to alienation of the property.
Hence, this appeal.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellant had paid a sum of Rs.65,500/ , though the companysideration as per the agreement had been only to the extent of Rs.40,000/ .
Additional Issues Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Regular First Appeal No.
In view of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and after companyclusion of the trial decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.1998.
As the time limit for the execution of the sale deed had expired, and the sale deed was number executed, the appellant plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.
In fact the power of attorney had been given only for management of the property and number creating any right to transfer the same.
Earlier there has been a prior sale of 1/3rd share in the same property share of the brother of the respondent in favour of D. Narendra and the appellant had filed the suit against him also claiming that the said part of the property companyld have been sold to him.
Shri K. K. Mani, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant had proved that the agreement to sell dated 25.6.1979 was number obtained by the appellant through any kind of fraud, there was numberjustification for the High Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court for specific performance on the grounds the property was situated in Bangalore the sale companysideration was inadequate and as a result of a long lapse of time on account of pendency of the case before the companyrts there has been a steep rise in the market value of the property.
More so, it is number probable that the appellant paid a sum of Rs.65,500/ instead of Rs.40,000/ as companysideration fixed in the agreement to sell.
The appellant had been a tenant.
Power of attorney had never been filed before the Trial Court number had it been proved.
The agreement dated 25.6.1979 companytained clause 11 according to which if the sale deed was number executed, the earnest money of Rs.5,000/ received by alleged power of attorney holder would be refunded to the purchaser together with the like amount of Rs.5,000/ as liquidated damage for breach of companytract.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.
30/1981 on 1.1.1981 for specific performance of companytract in the City Civil Court, Bangalore alleging that the power of attorney holder of the respondent entered into the agreement dated 25.6.1979 to sell the suit property i.e. 1/3rd share of the respondent in the property being No.43, Mission Road, Shanti Nagar, Bangalore 27 to him for a companysideration of Rs.40,000/ by receiving an advance of Rs.5,000/ .
265 of 1999.
FACTS The Appellant who had been inducted as a tenant at an initial stage filed suit No.
The photocopy of the same was shown to the respondent during the time of his cross examination wherein he has admitted his signature thereon only.
The respondent had never admitted its companytents or genuineness of the same.
