Nanjamma have transferred their right, title and interest in the property, including the suit premises, to the respondent herein.
The suit premises were initially owned by one N. Shamanna.
The plea arises for determination in the background of the facts briefly stated hereinafter.
City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
1.11.1967.
The judgment and decree have achieved a finality as the appellant herein did number pursue the matter further.
1, 2 and 3 in the suit seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell of the year 1970 in his favour.
The factum of there being any agreement to sell the property entered into by the original landlord with the appellant has been denied and has been a subject matter of companytroversy in these proceedings.
Not only was the plaintiffs claim for specific performance and monetary relief in the alternative denied, but even the relief of injunction was number allowed to him.
On 1.9.1999, the suit was dismissed in its entirety.
The companytroversy centering around the principal issue arising for decision in this appeal stands mellowed down to the extent of the findings arrived at in the judgment dated 1.9.1999 passed by VII Addl.
It was a suit instituted by the appellant herein against N. Shamanna the original owner, Nanjamma wife of the original owner and A. Sreenivasan, the present owner and the respondent herein respectively impleaded as defendant number.
The respondent herein was impleaded as subsequent transferee.
What is number disputed is that under a deed of sale dated 18.4.1983 the original owner N. Shamanna and his wife Smt.
The appellant was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant w.e.f.
According to the appellant, he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from the original owner in the year 1970, whereafter he has been holding the suit premises as a prospective vendor and in part performance of agreement to purchase the property, which relationship has superseded the erstwhile tenancy relationship and altered the nature and character of appellants possession over the suit premises from that of tenant to that of a purchaser in possession in part performance of agreement to sell the property within the meaning of Section 53A of T.P. Act.
J U D G M E N T C. Lahoti, J. The suit premises forming part of the building No.25, 5th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bangalore, measuring 8x20 sq.
The singular issue surviving for decision at this stage and around which the learned companynsel for the parties have centered their submissions is whether the appellant is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence number liable to suffer eviction based on landlord tenant relationship which has ceased to exist on account of subsequent events.
These proceedings were initiated by the respondent herein after serving a numberice on the appellant.
