Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, JJ.
Dr. K.S. Asok S/o Late K. Sheshadri Iyer - Appellant
Versus
K. Vinod Kumar, S/O Late Kumar Doraiswamy Sheshadri - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.509 OF 2009 (PAR) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.508 OF 2009 (SP); REGULAR FIRST APPEAL CROB. NO.5 OF 2011
Decided on : 05-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of original suits and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of the trial court's judgment. (Para 4) |
| 3. details of the lease agreement and plaintiffs' claims (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. defendants' opposition and claims regarding the lease (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. appellants' arguments against the trial court's findings. (Para 11) |
| 6. plaintiffs' arguments rebutting defendants' claims (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. further rebuttals and evidence to support plaintiffs' claims (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 8. defendants' arguments questioning plaintiffs' credibility (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. further defense arguments on validity of agreements (Para 22 , 23 , 25) |
| 10. court's summary of disputes and legal context (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. issues for consideration raised by the court. (Para 29) |
| 12. court's analysis of evidence and findings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 13. final ruling and orders of the court. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 14. final conclusion and orders of the court (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
These Regular First Appeals are filed assailing the common judgment and decree dated 09.03.2009, passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for brevity), in Original Suits No.1696/1996 and 5955/1996. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.5955/1996 have filed cross objection in RFA 509/2009 assailing the said common judgment.
2. Original Suit No.1696/1996 was filed by Dr. K. S. Asok and another against K. D. Sheshadri for specific performance of contract in respect of schedule property, which is the subject matter of RFA No.508/2009.
3. Original Suit No.5955/1996 was filed by K. Vinodkumar and another against Dr. K. S. Asok and another for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each in favour of the plaintiffs and also for declaration that the lease deed dated 06.02.1975 entered into between defendant No.3 and defendants No.1 and 2, is null and void, to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property and also for accounts, mesne profits, etc, which is the subject matter of RFA No.509/2009.
4. Heard Shri. S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel as instructed by Advocate Shri. P. Chinnappa appearing for the appellants and Shri Bhargav G, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and cross objectors.
5. It is submitted that on 24.08.1996, an Original Suit No.1696/1996 was instituted by plaintiff No.1, Dr. K.S.Asok and another, against deceased defendant - K. D. Sheshadri for specific performance of contract in respect of the property bearing No.7, new No.7/1, 12th Cross Road, Malleswaram, Bengaluru, within the limits of Division No.3 of the Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as the “schedule property”). It is contended that the deceased defendant, residing in Bombay, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his cousin, J.R. Sheshadri, authorising him to lease, negotiate sales, and administer his properties. This Power of Attorney was duly authenticated by the Sub-Registrar, Bombay. Pursuant to negotiations finalised in 1973, a registered lease deed dated 06.02.1975 was executed by the defendant through his attorney in favour of the plaintiffs, retrospectively effective from 01.11.1973. The lease was for 98 years and stipulated that the plaintiffs had paid Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as an interest-free deposit, with an additional clause of option to purchase the schedule property upon payment of an additional Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) amounting to total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).
6. It is further submitted that, after being put in possession of the schedule property, the plaintiffs demolished the existing structures and, at their own cost and expense in 1975, constructed a bungalow with a total plinth area of about 4,344 sq.ft., pursuant to a sanctioned plan in the name of the deceased defendant. Upon completion of the bungalow, the Assistant Revenue Officer, North Range of the Corporation
A lease deed with an option to purchase is valid if the entire sale consideration is proven to be paid, and claims of fraud must be supported by credible evidence.
The court ruled that a specific performance claim requires the existence of valid foundational documents, particularly when minors are involved in property transactions, necessitating a retrial to pr....
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
(1) Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Purchaser who has paid full consideration and received original title deeds from seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances ....
The court affirmed the validity of a sale deed executed under a power of attorney, ruling that subsequent cancellation of the power did not affect the completed transaction.
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 grant of specific performance is discretionary, considering undue hardship to subsequent bona fide purchasers, outweighing the plaintiff's claim based on a disputed agreement.
(1) Partition of property – It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek cancellation of alienations.(2) Power of Attorney – Ordinarily, a Power of Attorney is to be con....
Ex-parte decree for specific performance of unregistered release agreement does not create title in immovable property unless executed and registered; time-barred execution leaves co-owners' partitio....
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
