Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
Sushila D/o Krishna Dharmoje – Appellant
Versus
Annappa Krishna Dharmoje – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of appeal process and factual background. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against previous court decisions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. validity of agreements during legal restrictions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission.
2. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi (for short ‘the trial Court’) in O.S.No.17/2007, which is confirmed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi (for short, ‘the first appellate Court’) in R.A.No.8/2011 as per the Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2025.
3. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
-
4. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract as per the Agreement of Sale dated 31.05.1997 against the defendant.
5. Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing the objections. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed 08 issues and one additional issue. To prove the case of plain
Agreements executed in violation of statutory prohibitions, particularly in land transactions, are void and unenforceable, reflecting principles of law against illegal agreements.
Specific performance of a sale agreement executed during a non-alienation clause period is valid if the agreement stipulates fulfillment after the clause's expiration, emphasizing the need for equita....
The omission of Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act retroactively validated the agreement for sale, but plaintiffs failed to establish readiness to perform the contract.
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.
The court upheld the validity of property sale agreements made with conscious acknowledgment of a statutory bar on alienation, affirming that possession under the agreements was sufficient for enforc....
The mandatory nature of the relief of specific performance of a contract subject to the provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 19....
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
Agreement to Sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title.
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
