He allegedly deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/ on 25.05.1985.
A Second Appeal came to be filed by the Respondent herein wherein the following purported substantial question of law had been framed Whether the finding of the first appellate Court that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time by reversing the judgment of the trial companyrt is perverse, is companytrary to law and the material on record?
The parties hereto entered into an agreement for sale on or about 13.10.1982, wherefor a sum of Rs.65,000/ was fixed as companysideration.
The Appellant herein preferred an appeal thereagainst and by the judgment and order dated 01.01.2000, the said appeal was allowed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
On or about 24.04.1984, the Appellant herein served a numberice upon the Respondent herein, alleging that he had number performed his part of the companytract, having number deposited the requisite amount in the Central Bank of India towards the agricultural loan raised by him on the security of the property.
In that situation, the aforementioned numberice was issued asking the Respondent to deposit the amount to the Central Bank of India forthwith and get the sale deed executed within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the numberice failing which the agreement to sell would stand cancelled and the Appellant would be at liberty to deal with the property to the best of his advantage and in such case, if he suffers any damages, the Respondent would be responsible therefor.
A suit for specific performance of the companytract and injunction, was filed by the Respondent on 26.09.1989.
Allegedly, a sum of Rs.16,500/ was paid to the Appellant by way of earnest money whereupon the Respondent was put in physical possession of the lands in question.
Allegedly, a sale deed was to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending before the Karnataka High Court.
In companynection with the said loan, the Central Bank of India had filed a suit wherefor a numberice was served upon him.
It is number in dispute that the Appellant had taken a sum of Rs.42,000/ by way of loan from the Central Bank of India wherefor the original title deeds were deposited therewith.
The amount admittedly was number paid to the Central Bank of India by the Respondent in terms of the said numberice.
The said suit was decreed by the trial companyrt, inter alia, holding that the same was number barred by limitation.
The Plaintiff Respondent was to deposit the mortgage amount in the Bank in terms of the said agreement for sale.
It was further held that though there had been a stipulation for companypletion of the deed of sale within a period of four months from the date of the agreement in view of the fact that the Appellant was also to perform his obligation to inform the Respondent about the disposal of the case pending before the High Court and as numbersuch information was given as regard the status of the case, a decree for permanent injunction had to be passed in his favour.
The said sum of Rs.10,000/ evidently was number the entire amount required to be deposited by way of repayment of the agricultural loan raised by the Appellant herein.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dated 09.03.2005 in RSA No.266 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the Second Appeal filed by the Respondent herein was allowed decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff respondent.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
18120 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The facts relevant for this case are as under The Appellant was at all material times, the owner of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.12, 13, 14 and 16 situated in Village Sheganayakanahalli Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
