Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed two regular first appeals being R.F.A. Nos.
The High Court, however, after deciding the issues in favour of the plaintiff, directed that in order to weigh the equities between the parties and keeping in view the price escalation, which is unavoidable in present days, the plaintiff will pay an additional sum of Rs.
Since despite service of legal numberice, defendant number 2 failed to execute the same, suit for specific performance was also filed.
The plaintiff also averred that she reserved her right to file a suit for specific performance of agreement against the defendants.
3,50,000/ and paid a sum of Rs.
The defendants also companytested the suit on two legal grounds.
1092 of 2009 and 1094 of 2009 before the High Court.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the High Court, Defendants 1 and 3 have approached this Court in the instant civil appeals.
The aforesaid suit was companytested by defendant number.
223/2000 for permanent injunction against the defendants.
In terms of clause 2 of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.
The defendants also alleged that defendant number 1 was the bona fide purchaser for value and hence her title cannot be questioned in the suit.
It was also alleged that defendant number 2 on 25.10.1995 cancelled the agreement dt 15.02.1989 by sending legal numberice to the plaintiff and then sold the suit house to defendant number 1 on 09.02.1998 for Rs.
50,000/ by the plaintiff to defendant number 2, the defendants denied all other material allegations and inter alia alleged that since the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale companysideration of Rs.
On 31.03.2000, the plaintiff filed another civil suit being OS No.
It is against this judgment decree of the High Court, the defendants have filed the present appeals by way of special leave petitions.
It was alleged that she also made some improvements therein by spending money and is paying electricity and water charges etc.
However, defendant number 2, for the reasons best known to her, did number execute the sale deed despite having received the full sale companysideration from the plaintiff.
The question arises for companysideration in these appeals is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeals preferred by the plaintiff, resulting in decreeing the two civil suits against defendants in relation to suit house?
3,50,000/ .
The first appellate companyrt, i.e., the High Court, in appeal, by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 reversed the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and decreed both the suits in appeal, against the defendants.
The defendants companytested the civil suit.
1 and 2 and their associates, the plaintiff immediately lodged a companyplaint in the companycerned police station.
1 and 2 again visited and attempted to assault the plaintiff and unsuccessfully attempted to companymit trespass in the suit house.
2334 of 2000 in the Court of City Civil Judge Bangalore against the defendants for specific performance of agreement dated 15.02.1989 in relation to the suit house.
It was alleged that on the one hand, defendant number 2, despite having received full sale companysideration, did number perform her part of the agreement by number getting the suit house transferred in plaintiffs favour as per clause 3 of the agreement and by doing the acts which she was expected to do in terms of agreement, and on the other hand, tried to interfere in plaintiffs lawful possession over the suit house.
3,50,000/ and has been in possession of the suit house.
3,50,000/ to defendant number 2 for obtaining sale deed in her favour.
It was alleged that defendant number 1, who is a total stranger to the suit house and having numberright, title and interest in the suit house, on 2.1.2000 visited the suit house along with defendant number 2 and some other unwanted elements and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit house.
The trial companyrt vide companymon judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 dismissed both the suits.
It was also alleged that on 8.1.2000, defendant number.
The trial companyrt companysolidated both the suits for trial.
Firstly, it was companytended that the suit was number maintainable, as the bar companytained in Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as CPC did number permit the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance of agreement in question against the defendants.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the civil suits, and number in these appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts.
It was submitted that the plaintiff has a prima facie case, so also the balance of companyvenience and irreparable loss in her favour, which entitles her to claim permanent injunction against the defendants in relation to the suit house.
It was further alleged that the plaintiff was and has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement to get the sale deed executed in her favour after having performed her part of the companytract.
In substance, case of the plaintiff was that she entered into an agreement on 15.02.1989 with defendant number 2 to purchase the suit house for Rs.
50,000/ to defendant number 2 by way of advance towards the sale companysideration.
While admitting the execution of agreement dated 15.02.1989 with the plaintiff for sale of suit house for Rs.
The suit house was purchased by defendant number 2 from Bangalore Development Authority in short BDA in a scheme.
After pleading the same facts, which are set out above, the plaintiff further alleged that she has performed her part of the agreement by paying entire sale companysideration of Rs.
The dispute relates to a dwelling house bearing number 351 Block number11, Matadahalli Extension, number known as R.T. Nagar Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the suit house .
By companymon impugned judgment decree, the High Court allowed both the appeals, reversed the judgment decree of the trial companyrt and decreed both the civil suits by passing a decree for specific performance of agreement against the defendants in relation to suit house and also issued permanent injunction as claimed by the plaintiff.
4 lacs to defendant number 1 within three months after execution of sale deed by them in favour of plaintiff pursuant to the impugned judgment decree.
It was alleged that relief to claim specific performance of agreement was available to the plaintiff when she filed the first suit OS No.
Issues were framed.
These facts are number in dispute.
Later, the plaintiff further paid the balance companysideration of Rs.
3 lacs to defendant number 2 in terms of the agreement, defendant number 2 on 25.10.1995 sent a legal numberice to the plaintiff cancelling the agreement dated 15.2.1989 and sold the suit house to defendant number 1 on 09.02.1998 for companysideration and placed her in possession of the suit house.
While admitting the ownership of defendant number 2 over the suit house and the fact of entering into an agreement with the plaintiff for its sale to the plaintiff and further while admitting the receipt of advance payment of Rs 50,000/ from the plaintiff, the defendants denied all material allegations made in the plaint.
It was alleged that the plaintiff did number pay the balance companysideration as alleged.
4 lacs and placed her in its possession.
3,50,000/ and also admitting payment of Rs.
Parties adduced evidence.
On seeing the hostile attitude of defendant number.
For the sake of companyvenience, description of parties herein is taken from Original Suit No.223/2000.
3,50,000/ to defendant number 2 that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of agreement that defendant number 2 failed to perform her part of the agreement thereby rendering her liable to perform her part of agreement and that subsequent sale even if made by defendant number 2 in favour of defendant number 1 was number binding on the plaintiff because it was number bona fide.
This led the plaintiff to serve upon defendant number2 a legal numberice dated 6.3.2000 thereby calling upon defendant number2 to execute the sale deed in relation to suit property in plaintiffs favour.
1 and 2.
On 07.01.2000, the plaintiff filed a civil suit being OS No.
9.2.1998, that the suit was hit by the bar companytained in Order II Rule 2 of CPC because the plaintiff did number obtain leave to file second suit for specific performance while filing the first suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants in relation to the suit house.
3 Lacs towards the sale price and obtained receipts acknowledging the payment so made.
4 lacs over and above Rs.
Defendant number2 is the original owner of the suit house and defendant number1 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit house from defendant number2.
It was alleged that the plaintiff was accordingly placed in actual physical possession of the suit house and since then she has been in possession of the suit house.
It was held that the agreement dated 15.02.1989 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant number 2 for sale of suit house that the plaintiff was number placed in possession of suit house pursuant to agreement in question that the plaintiff was number ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement that suit is barred by limitation that the plaintiff was number entitled to claim the relief for specific performance of agreement that the plaintiff was number entitled to claim the relief for grant of permanent injunction that defendant number 1 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit house for value that the plaintiff was number entitled to challenge the sale deed dt.
Since police authorities did number take any action, which was required of, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession over the suit house.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
On 15.02.1989, Defendant number 2 entered into an agreement Annexure P 1 with plaintiff for sale of suit house at a total companysideration of Rs.
223/2000, initially against 3 defendants for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from interfering in plaintiffs possession over the suit house.
50,000/ as advance towards sale companysideration.
The plaintiff filed two suits, one for specific performance of agreement and other for grant of permanent injunction in relation to the suit house.
The High Court answered all the aforementioned issues in plaintiffs favour and against the defendants.
