Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
Narasimhamurthy S/o Late Lakkaiah – Appellant
Versus
Narasaiah, S/o Late Narasimhaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. agreement of sale and ownership rights (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court judgment and appellate review (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on the sale agreement validity (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's analysis on fragmentation act (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's final decision and orders (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03rd March, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.107 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.415 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed against the defendants.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and have entered into a Sale Agreement wi
The court established that an agreement to sell is not a conveyance and is not prohibited under the Fragmentation Act, allowing for specific performance once the property restrictions are lifted.
Agreement to Sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title.
An agreement for the sale of land that contravenes the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1966, is void ab initio and unenforceable.
(1) When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of Evidence Act is necessary.(2) Jurisdiction of Court has to be determined ba....
A plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for a decree of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, which both lower courts adequately confir....
(1) Agreement to Sell – Only a valid and enforceable contract can be ordered to be specifically performed.(2) Agreement to Sell – Court is not bound to order specific performance even if it is lawful....
The courts upheld that an agreement for the sale of property without the seller's title cannot be enforced, but the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of consideration paid.
The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the validity of the agreement for specific performance, and that permission from the Collector is necessary under the Te....
Agreements executed in violation of statutory prohibitions, particularly in land transactions, are void and unenforceable, reflecting principles of law against illegal agreements.
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
