Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sreenivas Harish Kumar, Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ.
Dyavamma – Appellant
Versus
M. Gadilingappa – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 100300 of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2023
APPEAL - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - ORDER 41 RULE 27 CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows for the introduction of additional evidence in appellate proceedings. The court emphasized that such evidence is permissible when it is necessary for the effective adjudication of the case. The court's decision to allow additional evidence was influenced by the need to establish the plaintiff's financial capacity and the necessity of expert testimony regarding disputed signatures, ultimately leading to a remand for fresh consideration of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant, claiming that the defendant had entered into a contract to sell land and received earnest money. The defendant denied the agreement and the receipt of money. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the defendant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court allowed the defendant's application to introduce additional evidence, recognizing the importance of the documents in establishing the plaintiff's financial capacity and the necessity of expert testimony regarding disputed signatures. The court found that the trial court had not adequately considered these aspects.
Issues: Whether the additional evidence should be admitted and whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the introduction of additional evidence is warranted under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC when it is necessary for a just decision. The court also noted the importance of allowing the defendant to present her evidence and the need for expert testimony to resolve disputed issues.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the trial court's judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present additional evidence and ensuring the defendant could testify.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 6/2014, a suit for specific performance instituted by the respondent in the court of Sr. Civil Judge, Gangavati. The respondent died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record.
2. 10 acres 20 guntas of land in sy. No. 72/B of Nandihalli village, Gangavati taluk, Koppal district is the subject matter of the suit (suit property). The plaintiff stated that the defendant entered into contract with him for selling the suit property to for a consideration of Rs.18.00 lakhs. The defendant received earnest money of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 from him and executed an agreement of sale on 4/12/2013 agreeing to complete the sale transaction on or before 4/3/2014 by receiving balance consideration of Rs.8, 000.00. Within the stipulated time, the defendant was required to discharge the loan obtained by her from State Bank of Hyderabad. Noticing that the defendant was not inclined to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff issued a notice to her on 22/1/2014 demanding of her the execution of sale deed. As the demand did not yield any result, he instituted the suit.
3. The defendant denied to have executed the agreement and receipt of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 towards earnest money. She denied her signature on the agreement and stated that she replied to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff.
4. Assessing the oral evidence of four witnesses from the plaintiff's side and one witness of the defendant, so also the documentary evidence as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, and Exs.D.1 to D.34, the trial court recorded findings that the plaintiff was able to prove execution of agreement by the defendant, receipt of earnest money of Rs.17, 92, 000.00 by her and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. These findings led to decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in terms of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Hence this appeal by the defendant.
5. The legal representatives of defendant have got filed an application, I.A. No. 1/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and produced six documents to be received as additional evidence in support of their case.
6. We heard arguments of Sri S.H. Mithalkod, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on merits of the appeal as also the application, I.A. No. 1/2023.
7. As we are inclined to allow the application, we need not discuss merits of the appeal, it is enough if we record reasons for our decision to allow the application.
8. The documents produced by the defendant are - (i) a letter of confirmation dtd. 7/12/2015 issued by Karnataka Industrial Development Corporation to the effect that compensation of Rs.2, 61, 25, 000.00 was paid in connection with acquisition of certain extent of lands in sy. Nos. 31/A, 32, 44/D, 93 and 94 of Veniveerapura village, (ii) a confirmation letter dtd. 16/1/2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari stating that compensation of Rs.59, 55, 000.00 was disbursed by issuing cheques in relation to acquisition of land in Sy. No. 86B of Veniveerapura, (iii) a voucher for payment of compensation, (iv) a cheque for Rs.2, 61, 25, 000.00 dtd. 18/7/2012 drawn in the name of Smt.Mandagowdru Saraswathamma, (v) another cheque dtd. 28/2/2011 for Rs.59, 55, 000.00 and (vi) bank statement of defendant's account issued by State Bank of India. Documents 1 to 5 are all photostat copies, document no.6 appears to be computer generated copy with seal of the bank.
9. In the affidavit subjoined with the application it is stated by M. Ramanagouda, the son and legal representative 1(b) of the respondent-plaintiff that while searching in the home, he and other legal representatives were able to trace the documents kept in a trunk belonging to his father. They found that these documents were important and relevant for appreciating the controversy involved in the suit. His father could not produce the documents when he adduced evi
The court established that additional evidence can be introduced in appellate proceedings under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC when it is necessary for a just resolution of the case, emphasizing the importance....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence and considering subsequent events that may impact the validit....
Specific performance of a contract is the rule, while refusal is an exception requiring substantial proof of grounds for denial.
The duty of the first appellate court to consider and decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on merits before or at the time of deciding the first appeal finally, and the appellate court's....
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a binding contract or prove payment of earnest money for specific performance, leading to the dismissal of his claims.
The plaintiff must prove the execution of the contract and her readiness to perform to be entitled to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, and the mere registration of a document does ....
An agreement of sale signed by vendor alone and delivered to purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can ....
Procedural fairness requires the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses concerning additional evidence; failure to do so violates litigative rights.
The burden of proof regarding the execution of a sale agreement lies with the party denying its existence, and failure to provide evidence can lead to adverse inferences against that party.
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
