Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
C.M. JOSHI, J.
Dr. S R Mamatha - Appellant
Versus
T. Govindaraj, S/o Sri. T.V. Chalamaiah - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 650 of 2008 (SP) C/W Regular First Appeal Crob. No. 1 of 2009 (SP), Regular First Appeal Crob. NO. 8 OF 2009 (SP)
Decided on : 14-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI K.C. SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI M S VARADARAJAN & SRI SANTOSH, SRI H SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE

The court reaffirmed that in contracts for sale of immovable property, time is not inherently of the essence unless explicitly stated, and readiness must be demonstrated through conduct rather than mere assertions.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Specific performance of an agreement for sale - Plaintiff sought specific performance for property agreement dated 02.12.1991, renewed in 1995 - Defendants failed to deliver possession due to tenants - Court held that time was not of the essence, and plaintiff demonstrated readiness - Aggrieved defendant's appeal dismissed, trial court's judgment confirmed. (Paras 1-58)

(B) Specific performance - Requirements - Plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract terms - Conduct of parties examined to ascertain compliance and diligence in following eviction proceedings prior to the agreement execution. (Paras 45-51)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed for specific performance concerning an agreement of sale dated 02.12.1991 due to defendants' failure to evacuate tenants from the property, despite a lengthy litigation process that ensued following tenant eviction proceedings initiated by the defendants, culminating in the plaintiff issuing a legal notice in September 1997.

Findings of Court:
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff was diligent in pursuing the case, that time was not of the essence of the contract, and recognized the defendants' conduct as uncooperative and opportunistic after benefiting from the eviction order.

Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract, whether time was essential to the contract, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that despite delays, as tenants were not evicted until later, the plaintiff's claims for specific performance were valid as the readiness to perform the agreement was established from the conduct exhibited.

Result: Appeal and cross-objections dismissed, affirming trial court’s decree for specific performance of the contract.

Table of Content
1. appeal against trial court judgment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the sale agreement. (Para 3)
3. details of agreements and tenant eviction. (Para 4 , 5)
4. plaintiff's actions post-eviction. (Para 6 , 7)
5. defendants' arguments against specific performance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. defendant no.2's additional contentions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. counterarguments by plaintiff’s counsel. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. court's analysis of arguments regarding limitations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. principles stipulated under specific relief act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. court analysis on time being essence of contract. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
11. court's observations on limitation and readiness. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
12. plaintiff's conduct regarding eviction proceedings. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
13. judicial discretion in granting specific performance. (Para 52 , 53)
14. conclusion of the judgment. (Para 58)

JUDGMENT :

C.M. JOSHI, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.8293/1997 passed by learned XVII Additional City RFA.CROB No. 8 of 2009 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16), the defendant No.2 is in appeal before this Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff has filed Cross Objection No.1/2009 and defendant No.1 has filed Cross Objection No.8/2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.8293/1997 before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff - T.Govindaraj filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale entered between himself and defendants. The facts leading to this appeal and Cross Objections are as below:

a) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and daughter of one S.M.Ramesh. They along with S.M.Ramesh executed a Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 02.12.1991 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.10,76,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,01,000/- was received by them as advance agreeing to execute the RFA.CROB No. 8 of 2009 Sale Deed and to handover the vacant possession of the same. The suit schedule property had fallen to the share of S.M.Ramesh and defendant No.2 in a registered family Partition dated 01.03.1990. The said S.M.Ramesh died on 26.02.1992 leaving behind defendant Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs.

b) The suit schedule property consisted of three tenements occupied by three tenants. As per the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale, the defendants were liable to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the Sale Deed. Since they could not get the tenants evicted, a fresh Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 30.05.1992 reiterating the terms and conditions which were incorporated in the earlier Agreement dated 02.12.1991.

c) Thereafter, again a third renewal Sale Agreement came into existence between the plaintiff and defendants reiterating earlier conditions on 26.05.1995.

d) Defendant No.2 as joint owner of the suit schedule property filed HRC Nos.849/1992, 850/1992 and 851/1992 against the tenants before the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, which came to be allowed on 20.04.1996. The tenants filed Revision before this Court in HRRP Nos.1058/1996, 1059/1996 and 1035/1996. Two of them were dismissed at the time of the admission stage on 09.09.1996 by granting further time to the tenants to vacate the property. The other one was dismissed on 10.12.1996 granting 30 months time to the tenant to vacate the property. Accordingly, all the three tenants vacated the suit schedule property on 10.09.1997 and 11.09.1997.

e) All the while, the plaintiff was actively following the eviction proceedings and after the tenants vacated, approached the defendants expressing his ready and willingness to pay the balance consideration amount and to get the Sale Deed executed. Defendant No.2 was working at Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamilnadu. In order to get more price to the propert