IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that a suit for specific performance was timely filed under the Specific Relief Act, and an unregistered reconveyance document could not supersede a registered sale agreement.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1(a) to (c).

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before this Court in both the appeals is that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72/2006 filed the suit for the relief of specific performance, wherein the appellants are the defendants. The appellants have also filed the suit in O.S. No. 104/2006 seeking the relief of re-conveyance of suit schedule property based on the document of Ex.D1. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72/2006 is that sale agreement was executed on 24.11.1995 for sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-and out of that, Rs.40,000/-was paid and remaining balance of Rs.10,000/-was payable at the time of registration, when the defendants call upon to execute the sale deed in respect of Sy. No. 93/2 measuring 4 acres, 25 guntas. It is also the case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72/2006 that registered sale agreement was executed and husband of the first defendant was one of the executant of the sale agreement and the second defendant are also signatories to the said document and husband of the first defendant executed the sale agreement on behalf of the minor children also.

3. The defence of the appellants in the said in O.S. No. 72/2006 as well as in the suit filed by the appellants in O.S. No. 104/2006 is that on the very day of registered sale agreement dated 24.11.1995, a document of reconveyance was executed. Hence, they filed the suit for the relief of reconveyance. The material discloses that both the executant of Durgappa and also father of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 72/2006 Rangappa passed away after the sale agreement came into existence and original executant Durgappa died on 06.10.1999 and father of the plaintiffs died on 01.04.2003. Hence, litigation has taken place between the legal representatives of the said Rangappa and Durgappa.

4. In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs, who have filed the suit for the relief of specific performance in O.S. No. 72/2006 examined the second plaintiff as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendants in the said suit, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 104/2006 along with others, examined the second defendant in O.S. No. 72/2006 and second plaintiff in O.S. No. 104/2006 as D.W.1 and examined two attesting witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 4, scribe as D.W.3 and got marked reconveyance agreement as Ex.D1, notice as Ex.D2 and postal receipt as Ex.D3.

5. The Trial Court, having assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has decreed the suit in O.S. No. 72/2006 and dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 104/2006. The Trial Court directed the defendants to execute the sale within two months in terms of the sale agreement and to handover the possession. It is also observed that, in case, if the defendants fail to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, the plaintiffs can get the sale deed through Court Commissioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 72/2006 granting the relief of specific performance and dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 104/2006, the defendants in O.S. No. 72/2006 and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 104/2006 have filed two appeals before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri in R.A. Nos. 81/2012 and 82/2012. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in both the appeals, formulated the points for consideration whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and granting the relief of specific performance and whether it requires interference. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in both the suits. Hence, these two appeals are filed before this Court.

7. In R.S.A. No. 175/2018, the main contention of the appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in decreeing