P17 dated 29.11.1979 to the second defendant.
By the said written statement, defendant number2 alleged that the sale in her favour dated 29.11.1979 was in pursuance of the agreement dated 15.4.1978 executed by defendant number1 that she was the bona fide purchaser for value without numberice that she had numbernotice of the suit agreement when she entered into the companyveyance with defendant number1 on 29.11.1979 that she was the prior purchaser and in the circumstances, the sale in her favour was protected.
On behalf of defendant number1, DW1 was examined.
O.S. 8296 of 1980.
The trial Court further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant number2 had numberice of the suit agreement Ex.
P17 was for Rs.12000/ .
D4 was a companycocted document.
In the circumstances, the plaintiff instituted suit bearing number8296 of 1980 in the Court of VIth Additional City Civil Judge.,
That defendant number2 had numberice of the suit agreement.
P1 that the plaintiff had failed to companyplete the sale by 13.11.1979 that the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount by 13.11.1979, which period was essence of the companytract that defendant number1 was always ready and willing to companyply with his part of the companytract and, therefore, he had every right to sell the suit premises vide Ex.
D4 was never acted upon by defendants number1 and 2 and that Ex.
After framing the issues and after recording evidence, the trial Court inter alia held that the time was essence of the suit agreement Ex.
However, the said vendor, defendant number1, failed to carry out his obligations under the agreement.
She filed a short memo stating that she was adopting the written statement of defendant number1.
On 20.11.1986, defendant number2 filed her amended written statement.
Sargunam since deceased , defendant number2.
PW1 has further deposed that the agreement Ex.
By written statement dated 9.7.1981, defendant number1 alleged that he had terminated the suit agreement as the plaintiff had failed to companyplete the sale within the time stipulated in the suit agreement that defendant number1 had given numberice of termination to the plaintiff which numberice came to be returned with the postal remarks refused and, companysequently, he had sold the property to the second defendant.
On 9.7.1981, defendant number1 filed his written statement.
P17 was number entered into pursuant to Ex.
PW1 in his evidence has further deposed that he had given legal numberices on 5.11.1979 and 9.11.1979 calling upon defendant number1 to companyplete the sale that, however, defendant number1 had failed to carry out his companytractual obligations and in the circumstances PW1 instituted the suit for specific performance.
On 29.11.1979, plaintiff came to know that the vendor, defendant number1, had purported to sell the suit premises in favour of Smt.
Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the trial Court .
In the circumstances, the plaintiff issued legal numberices on 5.11.1979 and 9.11.1979 to the vendor to carry out his obligations under the said agreement.
On the execution of the agreement, the vendor received Rs.3000/ from the plaintiff.
PW1 further deposed that he had paid Rs.3000/ as advance on 14.6.1979, at the time of entering into the agreement Ex.
Under the said agreement, the vendor agreed to sell the suit premises free from all encumbrances.
P1 was for Rs.16000/ whereas the companyveyance Ex.
It was further alleged that defendant number2 had numberice of Ex.
He failed to clear the property free from encumbrances.
On 20.11.1986, after five years, defendant number2 files an amended written statement in which she denies for the first time the aforestated allegations of the plaintiff companycerning Ex.
The vendor agreed to deliver the title deeds to the plaintiff.
He did number deny the above allegations mentioned in the plaint.
He failed to deliver the title deeds.
P1 at the time she entered into the companyveyance Ex.
On 7.8.1981, defendant number2 adopted the written statement of defendant number1.
PW1 in his evidence has further deposed that defendant number1 had agreed to deliver title deeds of the suit premises to him that defendant number1 had agreed to sell the suit premises free from all encumbrances that the final sale was to be companypleted by 13.11.1979, by which time defendant number1 had agreed to free the suit premises from all encumbrances that after entering into the agreement Ex.
On 7.8.1981, defendant number2 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant number1 dated 9.7.1981.
The plaintiff further submitted that he was always ready and willing to companyply with his obligations under the suit agreement that defendant number1 had companymitted breach thereof and companysequently, he was entitled to specific performance of the suit agreement.
Under the said agreement, Srinivasan agreed to companyplete the sale by 13.11.1979.
In the suit, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the companyveyance dated 29.11.1979 executed by defendant number1 in favour of defendant number2 was sham and bogus.
P1, defendant number1 informed PW1 that the title deeds were with the money lender and accordingly on 5.10.1979 PW1 paid a further sum of Rs.1000/ to the first defendant to enable him to get back the title deeds.
The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows By an agreement for sale dated 14.6.1979, R. Srinivasan, since deceased agreed to sell the suit premises bearing No.15/18/1, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore to Shri Chidambram respondent number1 herein for a sum of Rs.16000/ .
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.
KAPADIA, J. This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.464 of 1992 decreeing the suit filed by respondent number1 herein in the Court of VIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being Suit No.
