The Court held that failure to issue legal notice prior to filing suit does not preclude the plaintiffs' entitlement to specific performance, especially given the absence of counters from defendants.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 passed in R.A.No.53/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, and the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.133/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract. It is contended that Defendant No. 1 has acquired the suit property in Panchayat parikath and accordingly he was in possession of the same. It is contended that, the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Puttaramaiah who passed away on 23.02.2011. During his life time, he entered into a registered sale agreement dated 27.08.2009, wherein the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the late Puttaramaiah for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, and received an advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs, and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration be paid at the time of registration of a sale deed i.e., within 12 months. Meanwhile, Puttaramaiah died, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to receive the balance consideration amount, and execute a registered sale deed. However, the defendants did not receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

4. Though, the defendants have appeared through the counsel, they did not file a written statement. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked 3 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The defendant did not cross-examine PW-1.

5. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration.

POINTS

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants had executed registered agreement in favour of plaintiff on 27.08.2009 agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.2,05,000/-?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have received Rs.2 lakhs as on the date of agreement?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are prove that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?

5. What order?

6. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of PW-1, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered points No.1 to 4 in the negative, and point No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.03.2013. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.133/2022, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.53/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.

7. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

POINTS

1. Whether appellants have shown sufficient reasons to permit them to produce original agreement of sale as an additional evidence?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants have executed registered agreement of sale in favour of Puttaramaiah on 27.08.2009 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.2,05,000/-?

3. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants have received