Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Rabanabi – Appellant
Versus
Bashyasab – Respondent
RSA No. 7183/2011 (Sp)
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate, Shivanand Patil, Advocate, Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, Advocate, Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate, Ganesh S. Kalburgi, Advocate
The Court emphasized the importance of proving the suit agreement, possession, and readiness and willingness in a specific performance case. It also highlighted the need for clear evidence to support claims of oral gift and mutation of property ownership.
Headnote:
specific performance - suit agreement - Sec. 20 of Specific Relief Act - substantial questions of law - oral gift - possession - mutation - readiness and willingness
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, claiming that the defendant's mother agreed to sell the property to him. Defendant No.6 disputed the suit agreement, claiming an oral gift in her favor. The trial Court found in favor of the plaintiff, and the appellate Court upheld the decision. Defendant No.6 appealed to the higher Court, raising substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff had proved the suit agreement, possession, and readiness and willingness to perform. The Court also held that defendant No.6 failed to prove the oral gift and that the mutation of her name in the property records was based on conflicting claims. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding it devoid of merits.
Issues: Dispute over suit agreement and oral gift, substantial questions of law raised by defendant No.6, and the Court's assessment of readiness and willingness.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the lower Courts' findings on the suit agreement, possession, and readiness and willingness. It also found that defendant No.6 failed to prove the oral gift and that the mutation of her name in the property records was based on conflicting claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower Courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant No.6, who has questioned the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein, the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of specific performance is decreed by both the Courts by declaring that the oral gift in favour of defendant No.6 is not proved.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance in O.S.No.222/1994. The plaintiff contends that one Fathima, who is the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 6 offered to sale the suit property and accordingly executed an agreement on 30/8/1993 for a sale consideration of Rs.45, 000.00 and received advance sale consideration of Rs.14, 000.00. The plaintiff also contended that the original owner delivered the possession pursuant to agreement. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the vendor has agreed that she would complete the sale transaction and execute the sale deed whenever the plaintiff called her. The plaintiff further contended that the original vendor Fathima expired on 5/4/1994. It is specifically pleaded that the defendants, who are the daughters of plaintiff's vendor were aware of the sale transaction and therefore, contended that the agreement executed by their mother binds on all the defendants. The plaintiff further pleaded that he made repeated requests to the defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.31, 000.00 and the entire allegations are attributed against defendant No.6 alleging that defendant No.6 went on postponing and hence the present suit.
4. On receipt of summons, defendant No.7 filed written statement and she admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendant No.7 admitted that her mother has offered to sale the suit land to the plaintiff and accordingly executed an agreement. She has specifically stated in the written statement that her mother was compelled to sell the suit land on account of domestic compulsions. Defendant No.7, who is the wife of the plaintiff further contended that her mother executed an agreement and received advance sale consideration of Rs.14, 000.00.
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.7. It is only defendant No.6, who has disputed the suit agreement. There is total denial by defendant No.6. On the contrary, defendant No.6 has set up an oral gift in her favour. Defendant No.6 contended that her mother has orally gifted the suit property in the presence of panchas on 26/3/1994 and on the same day, she was put in possession of the suit property and therefore, she asserted that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and further also claimed that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
6. The plaintiff and defendant No.6 to substantiate their respective claims have led oral and documentary evidence. Defendant No.5 has also let in oral evidence.
7. The trial Court having examined the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and additional issue No.1 was answered in the negative. The trial Court referring to the evidence let in by the plaintiff coupled with the stand taken by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and defendant No.7 and also coupled with the oral evidence of PW.2, who is the witness to the suit agreement, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving due execution of suit agreement in his favour by Fathima on 30/8/1993. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving payment of advance sale consideration and his possession pursuant to execution of the suit agreement. While answering additional issue No.1 in the negative, trial Court held that defendant No.6 has failed to prove the oral gift in her favour by her mother during her lifetime.
8. While answering additional issue No.1 against defendant No.6, the trial Court has examined the evidence let in
