IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL

O.S. NO.____OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Amaresh Vitobha Mirashi

R/o Bangur Nagar, Dandeli town,

Haliyal Taluka, Karnataka – 581329 …………………………… PLAINTIFF 1

Sushilamma

W/o Channayya Eda

R/o Bengaluru ………………………………………………………..PLAINTIFF 2

Kanthamma

W/o Diggi …………………………………………….…………………..PLAINTIFF 3

versus

Manjunath

S/o Balakrishna Waigankar

R/o Jagalbet, Joida Taluka

Karnataka - 581186 …………………………………...…………. DEFENDANT 1

Gowramma

W/o Vinayak ……..…………………………………………………DEFENDANT 2

 SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff, Amaresh Vitobha Mirashi, is a resident of Bangur

Nagar, Dandeli town in Haliyal Taluka, Karnataka. He owns a property
bearing survey numbers 678, 679 and 680, which is a south faced tiled
house with specific boundaries located in Dandeli's 6th Ward, Maruti
Nagar. This property has a municipal door number of 69 and taxation
number 12345. This property shall hereinafter be referred to as the
"Suit Schedule Property".
2. That the defendant, Manjunath, was interested in purchasing the Suit
Schedule Property for residential purposes. He approached the plaintiff
on 20.08.2014 to purchase the same and the terms and conditions were
discussed.
3. Subsequently, on 20.11.2014, the plaintiff and defendant entered into
a written agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell the Suit
Schedule Property to defendant for Rs. 25,00,000/-. A copy of this sale
agreement is attached as Annexure A.
4. As per the agreement, the plaintiff received Rs. 3,00,000/- from
defendant as earnest money on 20.08.2014. It was decided that the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 22,00,000/- would be paid by
defendant within 6 months upon registering the sale deed. Thereafter,
the sale deed was registered on 20.11.2014.
5. That the defendant paid the balance in instalments - Rs. 3,00,000/- on
12.12.2014; Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12.01.2015; Rs. 3,00,000/- on
14.04.2015 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 18.09.2016. However, an
outstanding balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- still remains to be paid
by defendant to plaintiff.
6. That the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.10.2016 calling upon
the defendant to pay this balance as per the sale agreement. However,
defendant failed to comply or respond to the notice. As per the sale deed
 terms, upon such failure, the sale shall become void and defendant will
have to forfeit the earnest amount paid.
7. That the plaintiff has already fulfilled his obligation under the
agreement by handing over possession of the property to defendant. The
sale deed stipulates that if defendant fails to pay the full sale
consideration or register the sale deed, the agreement will become void
and earnest money will stand forfeited.
8. The cause of action arose on 20.10.2016 when defendant failed to pay
the outstanding amount despite the legal notice. The defendant
continues to remain in breach.
9. That the suit is within the period of limitation.
10. That this Hon’ble Court is competent to hear and try this suit as the
cause of action, that is, the defendant's failure to pay the balance sale
consideration despite legal notice, occurred within the territorial limits
over which this Court exercises jurisdiction.
11. Furthermore, the requisite court fees have been paid by the plaintiff as
per the reliefs sought. The monetary value of the suit being Rs.
12,00,000/- which pertains to the balance sale consideration, it is
within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate upon and
pass a decree in the matter.

PRAYER:

In view of the foregoing submissions, the plaintiff most humbly prays that
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. Pass a decree of specific performance of the sale agreement in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant
to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the
plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement.
2. Award cost of filing and pursuing the present suit to the plaintiff and
direct the defendant to pay the same, keeping in view that the plaintiff
 was compelled to approach the Court on account of breach of contract
by the defendant.

The plaintiff leaves it to the wisdom and sense of justice of this Hon'ble
Court to pass any other order or decree as deemed fit and proper to meet
the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Place: Haliyal Plaintiff

Date: 14.02.2024 Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff

VERIFICATION:

I, Amaresh Vitobha Mirashi do hereby verify at Haliyal on this 14th day of

February 2024 that the contents of paras 1 to 11 of the plaint are true to
my knowledge as derived from the records maintained in the ordinary
course of business, and last 2 paras is the humble prayer to this Hon’ble
Court.

Witness Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL

O.S. NO.____OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Amaresh Vitobha Mirashi

R/o Bangur Nagar, Dandeli town,

Haliyal Taluka, Karnataka – 581329 ………………………………PLAINTIFF 1

Sushilamma

W/o Channayya Eda

R/o Bengaluru ………………………………………………………..PLAINTIFF 2

Kanthamma

W/o Diggi …………………………………………….…………………..PLAINTIFF 3

versus

Manjunath

S/o Balakrishna Waigankar

R/o Jagalbet, Joida Taluka

Karnataka - 581186 …………………………………...…………. DEFENDANT 1

Gowramma

W/o Vinayak ……..…………………………………………………DEFENDANT 2

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF CPC BY
THE DEFENDANTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. It is humbly submitted that, at the very outset, the present suit filed by
the Plaintiffs is not maintainable in law or on facts and deserves to be
dismissed at this preliminary stage itself.
2. It is humbly admitted that the averments in paragraph 1, stating that
the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property are contested. The
plaintiffs had sub-let the suit property to tenants and have failed to
disclose this material fact or implead the tenants as parties, which they
were duty bound to do truthfully.
3. It is humbly submitted that the contents of paragraphs 2 and 3
regarding defendant's desire to purchase the property, negotiations
between parties and execution of sale agreement are not disputed.
4. It is humbly submitted that the averments in paragraph 4 about
payment terms are false to the extent that another contingency for
paying balance sale consideration was vacant possession being handed
over by plaintiffs within 6 months of registering sale deed. The plaintiffs
have failed to disclose this material term agreed upon.
5. It is humbly submitted that the obligation claimed in paragraph 5 upon
defendant to pay balance Rs. 12 lakhs do not arise since agreed
conditions about vacant possession were not fulfilled by the plaintiffs.
6. It is humbly submitted that the crucial averment in paragraph 6 about
issuance of legal notice is completely false as no such notice was issued
to Defendant No. 1. This important fact has been wrongly suppressed
by plaintiffs.
7. It is humbly submitted that the averments in paragraph 7and 8 are
denied categorically. The plaintiffs falsely claim to have handed over
possession whereas their tenants still occupy the suit property. Hence,
the property is not free of encumbrances. As the plaintiffs are themselves
 in breach of agreed terms, they cannot seek to forfeit earnest amount
paid by defendant.
8. Based on alleged cause of action date which is disputed, the present suit
is time barred by limitation. Additionally, there has been non-disclosure
and misrepresentation of material facts by plaintiffs, making them guilty
of fraudulent suppression and false suggestions. Hence the suit
deserves outright dismissal.

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing submissions disputing the factual averments and

maintainability of the present suit, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order dismissing the suit filed by
the Plaintiffs against the Defendant, imposing substantial costs for the
same.

The Defendant respectfully submits to any order that this Hon'ble Court
may be inclined to pass in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Place:Haliyal Defendants

Date: 05.03.2024 Advocate on behalf of the Defendants

VERIFICATION

I, Manjunath do hereby verify at Haliyal on this 5th day of March 2024 that
the contents of paras 1 to 8 of the plaint are true to my knowledge as
derived from the records maintained in the ordinary course of business,
and last para is the humble prayer to this Hon’ble Court.

Witness Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HALIYAL

I.A. (Civil) No. of 2024

IN

O.S. NO. ___ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Manjunath

S/o Balakrishna Waigankar

R/o Jagalbet, Joida Taluka

Karnataka - 581186 ……………………………………...………….APPLICANT 1

Gowramma

W/o Vinayak ……………………………………………………………APPLICANT 2

versus

Amaresh Vitobha Mirashi

R/o Bangur Nagar, Dandeli town,

Haliyal Taluka, Karnataka - 581329……………………………RESPONDENT 1

Sushilamma

W/o Channayya Eda

R/o Bengaluru ……………………………………..……………..RESPONDENT 2

Kanthamma

W/o Diggi …………………………………………….……………..RESPONDENT 3

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908

The applicant above-named states as follows:

1. The Applicants have filed the present Interlocutory Application to bring

the true and complete facts before this Hon'ble Court, which the
Respondents have failed to do despite it being their obligation. The
Respondents have misled this Court by making false and incomplete
statements. Hence, this application is being humbly submitted.
2. It is submitted that the Applicants had registered a sale deed dated
20.11.2014 to purchase the suit property from Respondents. Prior to
this registration, the Applicants had paid Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest
money to the Respondents on 20.08.2014.
3. As per the mutually agreed terms of the sale deed, the balance sale
consideration was to be paid by Applicants within 6 months of
registering the sale deed at their own expense.
4. It was also agreed that upon the sale deed registration, Respondents
would handover vacant possession of the suit property to Applicants,
free of all encumbrances. However, Respondents failed to disclose that
they had already sub-let the said property to tenants.
5. In breach of contract, Respondents did not cease their rent agreements
with these tenants before the registration of sale deed in Applicant's
favour. As a result, till date, the Applicants have not received possession
and the tenants continue to occupy the premises refusing to vacate.
6. The sale deed also gave Applicants the right to deposit the balance
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in Court and obtain possession in case of
failure by Respondents to handover vacant possession.
7. It is submitted that despite Applicants paying over half the total
consideration in multiple instalments and duly registering the sale deed,
Respondents have violated the agreement by not providing vacant
possession. This is causing grave hardship and loss to Applicants.
 DECLARATION

The Applicants herein solemnly affirm and declare that no material facts
have been concealed or suppressed by them before this Hon’ble Court.

It is further declared in good faith that all supporting documents,

enclosures and annexures relied upon and filed along with the present
Interlocutory Application are true and correct copies of their respective
originals; or accurate reproductions or translations of the same.

The Applicants undertake to produce the originals of the said documents

before this Hon’ble Court should the need arise. This declaration is made
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Verified at Haliyal dated at 5th day of March 2024.

Counsel for Applicant Applicant

VERIFICATION

I, Manjunath do hereby verify at Haliyal on this 5th day of March 2024 that
the contents of paras 1 to 7 of the Interlocutory Application are true to my
knowledge as derived from the records maintained in the ordinary course
of business, and that I have not suppressed any material facts.

Witness Deponent