IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
UMESH M ADIGA
Venkatappa @ Kadupappa S/o Late Gellapalyada Venkatappa – Appellant
Versus
Chikka Narasimhappa Dead by His LRs. Smt. Rathnamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
UMESH M. ADIGA, J.
1. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2008 passed by the District Judge (C/c of Fast track Court), at Chickballapur (for short 'First appellate Court') in R.A.No.141/2003.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff/appellant are that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and he intended to sell the same and he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff dated 16.05.1996, agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.35,250/- and received an amount of Rs.20,000/- as earnest money and had executed written agreement in this regard. It was agreed between the parties that whenever plaintiff calls upon the defendant, he shall execute registered sale deed by receiving balance amount of sale consideration. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff time and again requested the defendant No.1 to execute Registered Sale Deed, after receiving balance amount of sale consideration. But defendant No.1 went on postponing to execute the registered sale deed on one or the other pretext. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained t
Appellate courts must uphold trial court findings unless explicitly challenged; sales during ongoing litigation violate the principle of lis pendens.
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Once sale agreement is proved and subsequent sale was during pendency of suit hit by doctrine of lis pendens, decree for specific performance can b....
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, affirming the doctrine of lis pendens and ensuring the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract was duly recognized.
The doctrine of lis pendens overrides the rights of bona fide purchasers when they acquire property during pending litigation concerning the same property, as established by case law.
The plaintiff's assertion of readiness and willingness in specific performance claims must be continuous and substantiated; the burden lies on the party contesting the agreement's legitimacy.
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
(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....
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
The court upheld that corroborated expert evidence can establish the authenticity of a contested agreement, supporting the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
A pendente lite purchaser cannot assert independent title in execution proceedings, as the doctrine of lis pendens prevails over claims of bona fide purchasers under the Specific Relief Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.