Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) The appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by the respondent-defendant was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The High Court, however, reversed the judgments of the two Courts below and dismissed the suit by allowing the second appeal. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) According to the appellant, the respondent, being the owner of the suit property, entered into an agreement dated June 2, 1968 to sell the suit land for Rs. 9, 160/-. Sum of Rs. 7, 160/- was paid as advance and the balance amount was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The possession of the suit land was delivered to the appellant. The respondent, on the other hand denied the allegations and stated that the agreement was not intended to be acted upon as it was by way of security for the amount of Rs. 3, 160/- advanced to him by the appellant. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence, decreed the suit of the appellant.
(3.) The High Court proceeded on the assumption that on the date of the agreement the suit property was subject to a charge in favour of the co-operative society of which the respondent-defendant was a member and as such the sale of the suit land was void by virtue of the provisions of Section 33 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act). On this ground alone the High Court set aside the judgments of the Courts below.;