Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A.V.Chandrashekara, J.
Nagaraj —Appellant
versus
Smt. Uma —Respondent
R.S.A. No.2606 of 2006
Decided on 25.4.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Nagaraj (Party-In-Person, (Absent)
For the Respondent:Sharath S Gowda, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Court can refuse equitable relief of specific performance if it would cause hardship to defendant.
Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Sections 16(c) and 20—Specific performance of contract—Plaintiff who seeks equitable relief of specific performance must not only plead readiness and willingness, but also to prove the same—This is mandate of Section 16(c)—Readiness as contemplated under Section 16(c) indicates financial capacity of a person to have a sale deed by paying balance consideration amount—Willingness indicates eagerness to have a sale deed at the earliest—Relief of specific performance is an equitable relief—Court is not bound to grant equitable relief of specific performance just because agreement is proved—Court can refuse equitable relief of specific performance if it would cause hardship to defendant—Appeal dismissed with costs. (Paras 15, 17, 22, 28 and 29)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
A.V.Chandrashekara, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment passed in O.S.No.7/1992 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), Bangalore Rural District. As against the judgment, an appeal had been filed in R.A.No.2/1999 which was pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Bangalore Rural District. The same is allowed in part directing the defendant to refund the advance amount received by her. Appellant is the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.7/1992 and respondent is the sole defendant in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the trial Court.
2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:
1.27 acres of land in Sy.Nos.38/3 and 38/4 situated in Kurubarahalli Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property measuring 1.27 acres of land absolutely belongs to Smt.Uma, the defendant and that she had agreed to sell the same in his favour for a total consideration of Rs.87,100/-, at the rate of Rs.1300 per gunta. According to the plaintiff, an agreement of sale was executed by the defendant – Uma on 23.04.1990 and she received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance. 3 months was the time stipulated in the agreement for performing of the contract. According to the plaintiff it was agreed between them that by the time the sale deed would be executed, the survey of land must be conducted by the defendant and boundaries must be fixed.
b. According to the plaintiff, he was a tenant under the defendant in the ground floor of a residential building of the defendant and he had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- as advance to the defendant towards the rent and vacated on 8.6.1990. At that time, the plaintiff agreed for adjustment of advance of Rs.40,000/- to be repaid to the plaintiff towards the balance of consideration. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he had entered into a previous agreement of lease with the defendant on 10.07.19689 and the defendant – Uma had authorized to the plaintiff to do certain act in respect of the plaint schedule property, having leased the same to the plaintiff under the terms mentioned in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the agreement of sale executed in his favour. Plaintiff is stated to have erected tiled roofed three sheds and an A.C.C. roofed house in the suit property. He is stated to have planted 60 coconut saplings all around. He is stated to have enclosed the plaint schedule property with barbed wire fence. The water from the borewell got dug up is being utilized by the plaintiff for all his needs in relation to the plaint schedule property is the further averment.
c. Plaintiff is stated have always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by repaying the balance of sale price and bear all necessary expenses in regard to the cost of stamp duty and registration. The Karnataka (Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings) Act was repealed and hence there was no necessity for obtaining any survey from the Department and therefore he approached the defendant orally to execute sale deed in his favour several times. She post poned the same on one pre-text or the other and as such he had got issued a legal notice on 18.11.1991 calling upon the defendant to execute a sale deed. The reply notice was acknowledged by the defendant and it was replied by the defendant taking up untenable stand denying the execution of the agreement of sale and adjustment of advance amount towards sale consideration etc., Cause of action arose on 23.04.1990 when the defendant executed the agreement of sale and delivered the possession on 08.06.1990 to him and subsequently, when his request was turned down by getting a reply notice. Therefore, the plaintiff chose to file a suit seeking the following prayer a
