Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Sri S.M. Hegde Kadave S/o Late.Mahabaleshwara - Appellant
Versus
M/s K Venkatrama Sastry & K V Jayalakshmamma Charitable Trust – Respondent
R.F.A No.2245 of 2007(SP)
Decided on : 11-04-2022
specific performance - contract - 13.11.1987 - 40,000 - [KANTLJ-2009-1-547, AIR 1996 SC 112, AIR 1993 KAR 257, 2003(2) Kar.L.J.301, AIR 1983 CAL 337, 2008(4) Kar.L.J. 756] - The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract for the sale of a site. The defendants disputed the transaction and alleged that the schedule in the suit agreement was inserted fraudulently by the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the suit agreement was tainted with interpolation and dismissed the suit. The appellate court, after examining the evidence and pleadings, found that the plaintiff had proved the transaction and the defendants' defense was not substantiated. The court held that the suit agreement was valid and ordered specific performance of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a site. The defendants disputed the transaction and alleged that the schedule in the suit agreement was inserted fraudulently by the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the suit agreement was tainted with interpolation and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the plaintiff had proved the transaction and the defendants' defense was not substantiated. The court held that the suit agreement was valid and ordered specific performance of the contract.
Issues: The issues included the due execution of the agreement, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. Additional issues included whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had proved the transaction and the defendants' defense was not substantiated. The court held that the suit agreement was valid and ordered specific performance of the contract.
Final Decision: The appellate court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree and decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed for the site in question.
JUDGMENT :
The captioned regular first appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 passed in O.S.755/1993 by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, in dismissing the suit for specific performance.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
3(a) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff claimed that the first respondent is a registered charitable trust and defendants 2 to 8 are its Trustees. The defendant No.1-Trust formed a residential layout in Survey Nos.22, 23 and 24 of Bhupasandra Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, and offered to sell the suit site and in terms of negotiation, defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.3 executed suit agreement vide Ex.P1 on 13.11.1987 for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-.
3(b) The plaintiff has further alleged in the plaint that the defendants having agreed to execute the sale deed, however did not come forward to do so and went on postponing by stating that the BDA is yet to sanction the layout. On 17.8.1992, the defendant by registered letter communicated that layout is approved and requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff claims that he immediately replied on 26.8.1992 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and requested to intimate the date and place of registration.
3(c) The plaintiff claims that defendants having issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to come forward for registration of site, started registering sites in favour of different persons by collecting excess amount and therefore, was compelled to file the present suit for specific performance of the contract.
3(d) On receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants 1 and 2 stoutly denied the authority of defendant No.3 alone in executing the suit agreement and therefore, contended that the suit agreement executed by defendant No.3 would not bind the Trust. Defendants 1 and 2 also further disputed the alleged payment of Rs.40,000/- towards sale consideration and the transaction pertaining to site No.11 under suit agreement vide Ex.P1. The defendant 1 and 2 contended that layout was sanctioned by the BDA in the year 1992 and therefore, it is inconceivable as to how site No.11 could have been agreed to be sold under 1987 agreement. On these set of defence, defendants 1 and 2 claimed that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought in the plaint in respect of site No.11.
3(e) Defendant No.3 filed independent written statement and admitted execution of an agreement but however, specifically contended that as on the date of execution of the suit agreement, the suit schedule property was not in existence and no schedule was incorporated in the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. Therefore, alleged that the schedule incorporated in the suit agreement is forged and as such the suit agreement vide Ex.P1 is a fabricated document. Defendant No.3 also disputed the sale consideration and contended that Rs.40,000/- paid under the suit agreement was towards earnest money and therefore, claimed that the actual sale consideration was to be worked out after formation of the layout.
3(f) The Trial Court based on rival contentions framed the following issues:
2. Does the plaintiff prove his ever readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the specific performance?
4. Whether defendant No.1 bound by the suit agreement under law?
Addl Issues:
Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 prove tha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff proved the validity of the suit agreement and the defendants' defense was not substantiated, leading to the court ordering speci....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The court affirmed the necessity of proof of payment in contracts while ordering specific performance, highlighting discretion in upholding an advance payment despite procedural flaws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
The burden of proving the execution of a document rests on the party asserting its existence. In this case, the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, and the Court found the plaintiff's case to ....
The court emphasized that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness, which was lacking in the context of an unregistered agreement, leading to the dismissal of the....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
