The total area of property is 4,655 sq.
Heard Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
After his demise, each of the surviving sons succeeded to an extent of 2/11th share and each of the daughters succeeded to 1/11th share in the property.
11,42,590/ and the companynsel for the plaintiff on the instruction from the plaintiff agreed to the said proposal on the companydition that Defendant No.3 would pay the said amount within three months, in default, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief of specific performance disposed of the appeal directing defendant Nos.
Civil No 13474 of 2009 in R.F.A. No.
52 of 2000 and Misc.
Challenging the judgment of the High Court in appeal and the order made in the application, the appellant plaintiff has filed these appeals by way of special leave petitions before this Court.
2, 3 and 7 filed appeal being R.F.A. No.
91 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Chikmangalur.
5 to 7 daughters and Defendant No.
1, 2 and 4 to 7 desired to sell the schedule property and to distribute sale proceeds between them.
After his death, each of the surviving sons succeeded to an extent of 2/11th share and each of the daughters succeeded to 1/11th share.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, Defendant Nos.
As the division in the scheduled property was impractical, Defendant Nos.
On 02.05.1988, they agreed to sell the property to one Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet plaintiff appellant herein for a companysideration of Rs.3,10,000/ , executed agreement of sale and received advance companysideration of Rs.10,000/ .
1, 2 and 4 to 7.
Thereafter, an application being Misc.
3 who did number join the execution of agreement of sale would be 2/11.
By order dated 01.10.1999, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale dated 02.05.1988.
The High Court taking into account the submission of the companynsel for the appellants and respondents, fixed the market value of property at Rs.300/ per sq.
The High Court, by its judgment dated 03.03.2009, while holding that as Defendant No.3 was number a party to the agreement and he proposes to purchase the 9/11th share by paying value to the plaintiff and the value of 9/11th share would be Rs.
1, 2 and 4 to 7 is 9/11 and the share of the Defendant No.
As the defendants did number execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance being O.S. No.
Subsequently, on 06.05.1988, the wife of C.S Abdul Momin Sheriff died.
Brief facts The property in question originally belonged to one C.S. Abdul Momin Sheriff and he died leaving behind his wife Hajiba Tabsasum and Defendant Nos.
13474 of 2009 in R.F.A. No.
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 03.03.2009 and 28.08.2009 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.
It is also number in dispute that the agreement of sale was executed only by Defendant Nos.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
52 of 2000 respectively whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal and dismissed the application.
3, who is the son of Late Ismail Sheriff, son of Abdul Momin Shariff.
52 of 2000 was filed for deleting some words from the judgment and the same was dismissed.
1, 2 and 4 sons , Defendant Nos.
The total share of Defendant Nos.
Civil No.
52 of 2000 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
1,2 and 4 to 7 to execute the sale deed of their share to the extent of 9/11 area in the suit property by making companyvenient division of the property.
