1 and to execute a registered sale deed both together after receiving the balance of sale companysideration.
Defendant No.
In the second appeal filed by the plaintiff, the High Court, however, reversed the said findings.
2 to bring the Defendant No.
But Defendant No.
C.T.S. No.
Furthermore, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff for obtaining a discretionary relief having regard to Section 20 of the Act to approach the companyrt within a reasonable time.
He merely alleged After the said agreement of sale, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant No.
The Deed of sale, pursuant to the said agreement was to be executed within 3 years from the date thereof on payment of the balance sum of Rs.
100.00 on 4 5 1966 and in all Rs.
The plaintiff on or about 15.5.1984 admittedly made an enquiry in the C.T.S. Office to obtain the C.T.S. extract of the suit property, when he came to learn that the defendant already executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant whereupon he served a numberice dated 8.8.1984 upon Defendant Nos.
Even though the Defendant No.
1, the owner of the property.
9500.00 the plaintiff has agreed to that on adjustment of the mortgage amount of Rs.
3880.00.
2 went on postponing the same by one or the other reasons.
Defendant No.
Having regard to his companyduct, the plaintiff was number entitled to a discretionary relief.
10,000/ .
4000.00 and off, he would execute a proper sale deed companyveying the suit schedule properties.
1 and 2 failed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff.
No numberice admittedly was served on Defendant No.
1 returned unclaimed.
20,000/ was allegedly paid as advance.
J U D G M E N T B. SINHA, J Defendant No.
1, who, on or about 1.10.1978 is said to have entered into an agreement for sale with the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property bearing No.
Defendant No.
2 has received the numberice, he has number replied anything.
In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff allegedly was put in possession of the suit property.
The First Appellate on an appeal from the said judgment agreed with the said findings.
He filed a suit only after he came to know that the suit land had already been sold by her in favour of the appellant herein.
500.00 paid towards advance payment of the sale price, that on payment of the obtaining sum of Rs.
Inspite of the numberice, Defendant No.
At last this Plaintiff demanded Defendant Nos.1 and 2 by giving numberice.
1 is admittedly the owner of the property in suit.
2 is the companystituted attorney of Defendant No.
50,000/ .
3 is the appellant herein.
The numberice sent to the Defendant No.
He has further received Rs.
5000.00 and Rs.
100.00 on 21 3 1966 and Rs.
30,000/ out of which a sum of Rs.
1921/A of Gadag Betageri City Municipal area for a total companysideration of Rs.
As regards cause of action, in the Plaint it was stated The cause of action to this suit arose on 8.8.1984 when the plaintiff got served the numberice to the defendants demanding specific performance of agreement of sale dated 1.10.1978 and when the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
3, the appellant herein, purchased the suit property by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 15.5.1984 for valuable companysideration of Rs.
1 and 2 demanding specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 1.10.1978.
It is number in dispute that the plaintiff in his plaint did number make any averment as regard his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the companytract as is mandatorily required in terms of Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
