IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J.
Jayamma - Appellant
Versus
S.V. Thimmanna - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 2103 of 2006
Decided On : 08-02-2022
specific performance - agreement of sale - Sec. 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Order XLI Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sec. 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him, but later sold it to defendant No.2. The trial Court partly decreed the suit, allowing recovery of advance amount but rejecting the declaration of the sale deed as void and the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff appealed against this judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence of the deceased witness was admissible, but its probative value may be small. The Court held that the defendant No.2 could not challenge the findings without filing a cross-objection. The Court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the property and readiness to perform the contract. The Court held that the defendant No.2 would be put to greater hardship if specific performance was granted to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of evidence of a deceased witness 2. Whether the defendant No.2 could challenge the findings without filing a cross-objection 3. Proof of possession and readiness to perform the contract by the plaintiff 4. Hardship on the defendant No.2 if specific performance was granted to the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of a deceased witness is admissible, but its probative value may be small. A respondent cannot challenge findings without filing a cross-objection. The plaintiff must prove possession and readiness to perform the contract. The Court may consider the hardship on the parties in deciding whether to grant specific performance.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial Court's judgment was upheld.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and extract the key points along with the appropriate references.
JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiffs' appeal. The original plaintiff Sri Ningappa had filed a suit against the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 (arraigning them as defendant Nos. 1 and 2) in O.S. No. 15/2002 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chitradurga, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') for the relief of declaration and specific performance of contract.
2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule site which is a site bearing No.2 and measuring 48 feet X 44 feet situated at I Block, Ujjinimutt Road, Chitradurga. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are own brothers. Since 1976, the defendant No.1 had permitted the plaintiff to use the schedule property for the purpose of rearing cattle and she-buffaloes since the plaintiff was doing a milk vending business, as such, the plaintiff had put up a temporary shed in the property and using it for rearing the cattle and she-buffaloes. The defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 and received a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as advance and partial sale consideration from the defendant No.1. In that regard, as an agreement to sell came to be executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 16/7/2001. It was agreed between them that the vendor had to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff/purchaser after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000.00 on or before 15/12/2001. Accordingly, when the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 with the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000.00 on 15/12/2001, the defendant No.1/vendor told that he had already sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000.00 under a registered Sale Deed dtd. 28/11/2001. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No.1 also had no right to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 and that the defendant No.2 had no right to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1, as such, the said Sale Deed has no legal value in the eye of law. Even after coming to know of the Sale Deed in favour of the defendant No.2, the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 to execute a Sale Deed in his favour, but his request went in vain. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the promise, since the defendant No.1 refused to execute the Sale Deed in his favour, he was constrained to institute the suit. With this, he prayed for a declaration to declare the Sale Deed dtd. 28/11/2001 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as void and illegal and also for a direction to the defendant No.1 to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration. Alternatively, the plaintiff also prayed for recovery of advance amount of Rs.50,000.00 from the defendant No.1 with the interest at 18% p.a. thereupon.
3. In response to the summons served upon them, both the defendants appeared through their counsel in the trial Court and filed their written statement. The defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff is his brother and the suit schedule property had fallen to his share (defendant No.1) under a Settlement Deed dtd. 6/7/1976. However, he denied that since 1976, he has permitted the plaintiff to use the suit schedule property for the purpose of rearing the cattle and she-buffaloes. He also denied the alleged Sale Agreement dtd. 16/7/2001. He called the Sale Agreement as a forged document and concocted in collusion with deceitful friends to make a wrongful gain. He denied that he had no right to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendant No.2 in her written statement also denied the plaint averments by stating that the defendant No.1 is t
Banarsi and Others vs. Ram Phal
Food Inspector, Thodupuzha Circle vs. James N.T. and Another
The Court may consider the hardship on the parties in deciding whether to grant specific performance.
The court established that the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must consider all relevant evidence, including the existence of alternative properties, when determining whether ....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
The appellate court confirmed the validity of a registered sale agreement and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on specific performance despite claims of tenancy.
Unilateral cancellation of an irrevocable GPA is impermissible when the agent has an interest in the property, ensuring the protection of the agent's rights.
The grant of specific performance is discretionary, considering undue hardship to subsequent bona fide purchasers, outweighing the plaintiff's claim based on a disputed agreement.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as well as the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement for sa....
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, affirming the doctrine of lis pendens and ensuring the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract was duly recognized.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.