State of Karnataka Vs. Basavaraj and ors.

..... held, it is the duty of the plaintiff to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout the transaction to complete the required legal formalities and he must assist the defendant in all aspects of the transaction. on facts held, admittedly, the first defendant alone cannot obtain permission in form no. 37 as the said form has to be signed by both the parties, it is not the case of the plaintiff that to enable the first defendant he had sent required signed papers to the first defendant to secure permission from the income tax department in the required forms. admittedly, he has not signed such documents. in the absence of documents signed by the plaintiff, the first defendant cannot seek permission from the income tax department in form no. 37. trial judge without considering these factual aspects namely ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to secure the sale deed by paying the balance of sale consideration of rs.14 lakhs by the end of november 1994 or first week of december 1994 and without considering that the documents were not made available to the first defendant to enable him to obtain permission in form no. 37, has granted the decree. if defendants 1 and 2 are the joint owners of the property and if there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 together, if the first defendant alone has agreed to sell the property through the 3rd defendant and if the 3rd defendant has not been authorised by the 2nd defendant to sell her share in the property to the plaintiff, if the 2nd defendant has not agreed to sell her property to the plaintiff, no court can grant decree against the 2nd defendant who is not a party to any contract. decree was set aside. sections 10 & 20: [k.l. manjunath & s.n. satyanarayana, jj] suit for specific performance - no alternative prayer for refund of advance amount held, court in its discretionary power can mould the relief and grant compensation. - the..........while doing so, we have taken note of the fact that whereas this court can hear both the appeals, that, the division bench appeal cannot go before the learned single judge.2. the learned state public prosecutor laid considerable emphasis on the fact that a-1 and a-2 have been convicted by the trial court and his, submission is that, the decision is legally incorrect because the court have recorded an adverse finding against a-1 and a-2 ought not to have made any distinction between them and the remaining accused who have been acquitted. we have perused the judgment carefully and find that valid reasons have been given for making this distinction in so far as the evidence brings home the charges against a-1 and a-2 only whereas it does not establish them vis-a-vis the remaining accused. in this view of the case, we do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in favour of a-3 to a-9. the cr. a. no. 472/9,9 accordingly fails and stands dismissed on merits.3. in so far as cr. a. no. 473/99, is concerned, we have heard the learned state public prosecutor on merits. the principal submission canvassed by him is that having regard to the seriousness of the injuries that were inflicted, that the fine of rs. 1,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for one month imposed by the trial court on a-1 and a-2 is inadequate and that the punishment requires to be stepped up. the learned state public prosecutor relied on the well settled principle of law that the sentence awarded must bear a clear nexus to the gravity of the offence and he submitted that leniency of this sort, even though the period of 26 days in custody has been considered, would create a wrong precedent. while the principle cannot be called into question, what we need to record is that in cases of this type, all the relevant aspects need to he taken into consideration and we have taken note of the fact that the learned trial judge has done so. he has considered the fact that the.....