Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA, J.
Shri B.R. Rangaswamy Since Deceased By Lr’s., Smt. R. Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Dr. V.A. Pinto, S/o. Late B. Pinto – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No.1791 Of 2023 (SP)
Decided On : 28-11-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. Arun B.M., Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. K.G. Raghavan, Senior Counsel For Sri. Syed Khamruddin, Adv.
Specific performance requires a valid, enforceable contract where parties have a clear consensus. Lack of judicial acknowledgment invalidates pretended agreements.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Specific Performance - Suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 12.02.1999 over property dispute was decreed by the trial Court based on Ex. P.5, but this was challenged - The trial Court found Ex. P.5 valid and genuine, entailing reciprocal obligations despite defendant’s opposition. (Paras 4 and 12)
(B) Legal Validity of Agreement - The court held that Ex. P.5 constituted a concluded contract, but the appellant argued it was speculative and lacked enforceability as it was not presented during earlier proceedings and thus not binding. (Paras 10 and 11)
(C) Burden of Proof - The initial burden of proving the existence and enforceability of the contract rested with the plaintiffs, and failure to present Ex. P.5 in prior litigation was significant. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The dispute involved land originally belonging to Late Syed Younus, with multiple agreements of sale and a claim by the plaintiffs based on Ex. P.5. The earlier suit for specific performance filed by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the plaintiffs' prior agreement from 1975 as valid. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court erroneously assumed the enforceability of Ex. P.5 and shifted the burden of proof to the defendant; the appellate Court found that the absence of evidence in earlier proceedings was critical. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: Whether Ex. P.5 constituted a valid, concluded, and enforceable contract; whether the trial Court's judgment warranted any interference. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate Court ruled that specific performance cannot be granted when the stipulations of a contract are uncertain, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to show enforceability, which they failed to do. (Paras 13-14)
Result: The Regular First Appeal is allowed, and the trial Court's judgment is set aside, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and facts of the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court validated ex. p.5 as a concluded contract. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments by the appellant regarding ex. p.5. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. rebuttal from respondents on ex. p.5 and issues of waiver. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's reasoning and final judgment. (Para 19 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
1. The present regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in OS No.25242/2009 dated 23.03.2023 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall Unit (CCH 29), Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court’ for short). By the judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 12.02.1999 and directed the defendants to execute an absolute sale deed in respect of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The suit property consists of a land measuring 31,049 square feet situated at Richmond Road/Kingston Road, Bengaluru, originally belonging to Late Syed Younus. The said Syed Younus entered into multiple agreements of sale. The agreement of sale dated 11.07.1975 was in favour of one E.P Varunny later assigned to the plaintiff. On 04.05.1978 and 15.11.1978 the agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Further on 23.08.1978, agreement of sale is said to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1/appellant-B.R.Rangaswamy. The appellant/defendant No.1 had filed OS No.8443/1980 for specific performance based on his agreement dated 23.08.1978. The plaintiff in the present suit was also the defendant No.2 along with Syed Younus, who claimed his right under the agreement dated 11.07.1975. The said suit was dismissed on 15.04.1989 holding that the agreement dated 11.07.1975 in favour of the plaintiff was earliest valid agreement. The appellants/defendant No.1 in the said suit OS No.8443/1980 preferred RFA No.374/1989 before this Court. During the pendency of the First Appeal, on 12.02.1999, the plaintiffs and the appellant executed Ex. P.5, a document titled “Terms of Compromise”, signed by the parties and counsel. Under Ex. P.5, the property was proposed to be divided into 13,000 square feet (front portion to the plaintiffs) and 18049 square feet (rare portion to the appellant herein/defendant and further the parties were to share the total consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Ex. P.5 was not filed during the hearing of RFA No.374/1989. The RFA came to be allowed in favour of the appellant by the judgment dated 05.03.1999. The present plaintiffs and the vendor Syed Younus challenged the judgment in RFA No.374/1989 before the Apex Court. The SLP was dismissed in 2006, thereby affirming the judgment and decree of this Court in RFA No.374/1989. Even before the Apex Court, Ex. P.5 was not produced or relied upon.
3. After dismissal of the SLPs, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice-Ex. P.8 asserting rights under Ex. P.5-the agreement dated 12.02.1999. The present suit is filed seeking specific performance of Ex. P.5. The trial Court, by the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2023 held that Ex. P.5 is a concluded contract and decreed specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs, aggrieved by which the appellant has preferred the present Regular First Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
4. The trial Court by the judgment and decree held that the plaintiffs proved Ex. P.5 dated 12.02.1999 as a genuine and valid document. The Court observed that the said document contained clear reciprocal obligations and rejected the contention of the defendant, that Ex. P.5 was not speculative or conditional and therefore held that it is a concluded contract, not a mere agreement. Further the Court observed that abandonment was not proved by the defendant, applied adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872’). Since the defendant did not enter the witness box to explain his conduct, the Court a
