- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2008 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 97 of 2001 by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, urging certain relevant facts and legal contentions, whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit No. 2012 of 1985 dated 25.09.2000 by the XIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore and has modified the decree by allowing the appeal, granting the decree for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property. Further, it has granted the decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering with the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
(3.) Necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in granting the relief of specific performance of the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff requires to be set aside by allowing this appeal. In this judgment for the sake of brevity, we would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned in the plaint presented before the trial court. Since there is incongruence in the mentioning of exhibits in the judgments of the trial court as well as of the High Court, we will refer to the documents as per the annexures presented along with this appeal. The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) instituted O.S. No. 2012/85 before the Additional Civil Judge for grant of a decree of specific performance in respect of suit schedule property on the basis of the Agreement of Sale dated 25.12.1983 (Annex. P-1) and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit property covered in the Agreement of Sale was a vacant site measuring 54 ft. from East to West and 42 ft. from North to South carved out of survey Nos. 18/2, 19, 20 and 21 of Agrahara Thimmasandra village, known as C.K. Chinnappa Garden, Bangalore North Taluk, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short "BBMP"). It is the case of the Plaintiff that he entered into an agreement with Defendant Nos. 1-4 for sale of the suit property in his favour for consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid towards part sale consideration to the Defendant Nos. 1-4 and they delivered original title deeds and put the Plaintiff in physical possession of the suit schedule property. They had agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 40,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed to be executed in favour of the Plaintiff within five months after securing necessary permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'ULCR Act') now repealed, and Income Tax Act, 1961 and also to get change of khata of the suit schedule property in their names from that of the deceased husband of the first Defendant in the property register maintained by the BBMP at the cost of the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff had an obligation to pay the layout and conversion charges to the BBMP and bear the vendors cost for securing the permission from the aforesaid authorities. Further, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the time for completion of the sale of the suit property was agreed to be extended by two months in case of delay in securing the permission from the above referred authorities which might in turn cause delay in payment of the conversion charges.;