Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
A. Papanna, S/o Late Sri. Annaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mojjaiah, S/o Late Sri. Bolaiah @ Bachaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of agreement and property contested. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenging court decisions and proceedings. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. cite established findings on agreements and property. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. recognition of payment due and interest. (Para 20) |
| 5. court order to return sale consideration. (Para 21) |
KKJJUjudg
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri. H.P Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M. Krishnappa, learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.2 and Sri. Yashwanth Nethaji N.T. for Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for respondent No.10.
2. Appellant is the agreement holder in respect of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.79/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Hinkal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on the East by : Land of Mojjaiah and Karali Bolaiah, West by : Land of Malluraiah, North by : Land of Bolaiahna Mariyamma and on the South by : Land of Chikkamma.
3. There was a refusal to execute the sale deed by the first defendant and after exchange of notices, suit came to be filed for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 02.02.1996. Suit on merits came to be dismissed holding that even though agreement, cons
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.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate the existence of a valid contract and show readiness to perform, with the burden of proof resting on them; failure to do so results in dismis....
Merely admitting to a signature on a sale agreement does not establish execution; the burden of proof lies with the propounder of the document to confirm its genuineness.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
The exercise of discretion in specific performance cases must align with principles of preventing undue hardship, as established under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
The plaintiff must prove a valid agreement and readiness to perform for specific performance; failure to establish these elements results in dismissal of the claim.
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
