Case Note & Summary
The dispute arises from a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for sale of industrial property. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) sought to enforce an oral agreement dated 10.08.1988, between her deceased husband and the 1st defendant (appellant), for the sale of an industrial plot and structures bearing plot no. 6, Industrial Estate, Jewargi Road, Gulbarga, measuring 17,089 sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs.9,99,900. The 1st defendant contested the suit, setting up a different case that he had agreed to sell only half the property for Rs.19,99,900 and that possession was given for accommodation of the deceased husband's kept-mistress. The trial court decreed the suit in part on 13.10.2010, directing the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed on receipt of Rs.2,00,000 within 60 days at the plaintiff's cost, and granted perpetual injunction. Aggrieved, the 1st defendant filed this appeal under Section 96 CPC. Background: The plaintiff's late husband (Zameer Ahmed Gola) and the 1st defendant (Jameel Ahmed) were close friends and had a fiduciary relationship. The 1st defendant applied for and was allotted industrial plot no. 6 under a lease-cum-sale agreement with KSSIDC, and he established a proprietary concern 'Agro Needs Castings'. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, facing losses, proposed to sell the entire unit for Rs.9,99,900 to her husband, with her as co-purchaser. The oral agreement was allegedly entered into on 10.08.1988 in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff's husband paid Rs.1,00,000 by cheque on 03.04.1990; later, amounts of Rs.49,094 and Rs.3,00,905 were credited towards the 1st defendant's bank liability on 22.08.1991. After the husband's death on 03.02.1991, the plaintiff made further payments into the 1st defendant's bank account: Rs.1,00,000 on 24.06.1992, Rs.2,00,000 on 27.06.1992, and Rs.50,000 on 19.04.1992. She also paid Rs.46,650 to KSSIDC for cancellation of a proposed road in the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that the entire consideration was paid and that she was in settled possession of the property, leasing it out to various entities (Raziuddin for a school, the Department of Backward Minorities, and later to Jalees Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Maqbul Khan). She stated that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The 1st defendant, on the other hand, denied any agreement to sell the entire property. He alleged that only a portion was agreed to be sold for Rs.19,99,900 and that the deceased husband was permitted to use a part of the building as accommodation for a kept-mistress. He also contended that the property could not be transferred without KSSIDC's written consent under the lease-cum-sale agreement. He asserted that the plot initially measured only 14,875 sq. ft., not 17,089 sq. ft. He denied receiving the alleged consideration and claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance. The 1st defendant had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction (O.S.486/03, later renumbered as O.S.5/06 and withdrawn) and issued a legal notice to the plaintiff to vacate, which prompted the present suit. Legal issues likely included the validity and enforceability of the oral agreement, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, and whether specific performance could be granted. However, the exact issues framed are not evident from the excerpt. The excerpt provided ends with the pleadings stage and does not contain the High Court's analysis or final decision. The court presumably examined the evidence and submissions, but the outcome remains unknown from the text.
Issue of Consideration
KAHC030011552011_1
