Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
K.V. Rangappa S/o K.T. Varadappa – Appellant
Versus
R. Shankar S/o Ramaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. specific performance of an agreement to sell. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 21) |
| 2. substantial questions of law on agreement validity. (Para 4 , 8 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. execution and presence in agreement context. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. interpretation of section 17 of specific relief act. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 29) |
| 5. ownership and rights of parties under intestacy. (Para 28 , 30 , 39 , 41) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Sarvanna S., learned counsel for respondent.
2. Present appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.248/2012 whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent came to be decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2012 in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) came to be decreed:
The agricultural landed properties situated at Kumdenahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar district.
1. Sy.No.14/2, meg. 1-13 acres and it is bounded on:
East by – defendants own land
West by – Jayamma’s land
North by – K.R. Venkataramaiah land
South by – defendants own land
2. Sy.No.32, meg. 1-26 acres and it
The court affirmed that agreements for the sale of shares in joint family properties can be specifically enforced, if properly documented, despite disputes over full title.
Specific performance of a contract involving joint family properties requires consent from all co-sharers; failure to implead necessary parties renders the agreement unenforceable.
The court established that specific performance can be enforced despite the necessity for a partition of jointly held property shares.
Point of law: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
Contracts for specific performance are unenforceable when vendors lack title, and suits are barred by limitation if not filed within prescribed timeframes.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
A suit for specific performance is barred by limitation when filed beyond three years from the date of refusal, and cannot succeed if the vendor lacked the title to the property.
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
