Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 14139
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2001 OF 2013 (SP)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2013 (SP)
IN RSA NO.2001/2013
BETWEEN:
M.G.NANJUNDA SWAMY
S/O LATE M.N.GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT CHKRABHAVI VILLAGE
MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.NARASHIMAYYA
S/O CHIKKANARASAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
A)
SMT.PUTTALINGAMMA
W/O LATE NARASHIMAYYA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2
B)
SMT.LAKSHMI
W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
(DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE NARASHIMAYYA)
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT KORAMANGALA VILLAGE
MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
C)
SMT.JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT UTTARI ALAVAGAL
KUNIGAL POST
TUMKUR DISTRICT
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SARAVAN S, ADVOCATE FOR R.1(A) TO R.1(C))
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 24.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2006
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA,
DISMISSING
THE
APPEAL
AND
CONFIRMING
THE
The grant of specific performance of contract is discretionary and should be exercised in accordance with sound judicial principles, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties, and their respective interests under the contract.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT OF SALE - POSSESSION - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - [The plaintiff succeeded in proving the due execution of the suit agreement, payment of earnest money, and lawful possession over the suit land. The courts below rightly granted the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract, as denying it would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the owner, Smt. Nanjamma, who received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that his family had been in possession of the suit land as tenants for almost 60 years. The defendant contested the suit, denying the agreement and claiming that the plaintiff's possession was due to a rejected Form No.7 filed by his father. The defendant also claimed to be the owner under a Will executed by Smt. Nanjamma.
Finding of the Court:
Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff had proved the due execution of the suit agreement, payment of earnest money, and lawful possession over the suit land. The courts rejected the defendant's claim of concoction and forgery of the agreement and held that the defendants had failed to substantiate their theory of concoction.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had proved the due execution of the suit agreement and payment of earnest money? 2. Whether the plaintiff had proved his lawful possession over the suit land? 3. Whether the defendant had proved his claim of concoction and forgery of the agreement? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had proved the due execution of the suit agreement and payment of earnest money, as evidenced by the agreement itself and the oral evidence of witnesses. 2. The courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had proved his lawful possession over the suit land, as evidenced by the recitals in the suit agreement and the oral evidence of witnesses. 3. The courts below rightly rejected the defendant's claim of concoction and forgery of the agreement, as the defendants had failed to substantiate their theory of concoction. 4. The courts below rightly granted the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract, as the plaintiff had proved all the necessary ingredients and the denial of specific performance would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below and the grant of specific performance of contract to the plaintiff.
DECREE
DATED
22.03.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.132/1989 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC., MAGADI AND ETC.
IN RSA NO.2000/2013
3
DECREE DATED 24.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2006
4
JUDGMENT
DECREE
DATED
22.03.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.133/1989 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC., MAGADI AND ETC.
THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These captioned second appeals arise out of
suits filed in O.S.No.132/1989 and O.S.No.133/1989.
These captioned appeals are filed by the defendant
questioning the concurrent findings recorded in
O.S.No.132/1989,
which
is
one
for
specific
performance of contract and O.S.No.133/1989, which
is one for bare injunction.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are
referred as they are ranked in O.S.No.132/1989
before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific
performance of contract in O.S.No.132/1989 and also
5
sought relief of permanent injunction against the
defendants, while defendant No.1 filed a suit for a
bare injunction in O.S.No.133/1989. Plaintiff is
seeking relief of specific performance of contract
based on an agreement of sale dated 09.06.1985
executed by the owner Nanjamma. Plaintiff in the suit
claimed that the said Nanjamma, having executed an
agreement
to
sell,
received
an
advance
sale
consideration
of
Rs.8,000/-
out
of
total
sale
consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff in specific
performance suit also specifically contended that the
family of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
land. The plaintiff claims that his father has been
cultivating the land for almost 60 years as a tenant,
and after the death of his father, the present plaintiff
claims to be cultivating the land as a tenant under the
said Smt. Nanjamma. Plaintiff has further pleaded that
the said Smt.Nanjamma requested the plaintiff's
6
father not to file Form No.7 and claim tenancy rights,
assuring that she would sell the property to the
plaintiff's father. Therefore, plaintiff contended that
Smt.Nanjamma, during her lifetime, executed the suit
agreement on 09.06.1985 for a sale consideration of
Rs.10,000/-
and
received
an
advance
sale
consideration of Rs.8,000/-. Plaintiff further pleaded
that Nanjamma died on 11.02.1986 before the expiry
of period stipulated under the agreement. Plaintiff
claims that the transaction was agreed to be
completed within three years, but the original owner
Smt.Nanjamma died within 1½ years of the execution
of the suit agreement. Plaintiff claims that he is ever
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
4. Defendant No.1, on receipt of summons,
contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the very
suit agreement set up by the plaintiff. Defendant
No.1 claimed that the plaintiff has fabricated and
7
come up with the concocted document. Defendant
No.1 further contended that the plaintiff's claim that
they did not file Form No.7 on account of assurance by
Nanjamma is a false statement. On the contrary,
defendant No.1 claimed that Form No.7 filed by
plaintiff's father was rejected by the Land Tribunal and
therefore, having suffered an order at the hands of
the
Land
Tribunal,
the
plaintiff
concocted
the
agreement and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.1 also claims that during the
lifetime of Smt.Nanjamma, she made testamentary
arrangements and accordingly, bequeathed the suit
land under agreement of sale dated 09.06.1985 and
hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. In the connected suit, the present defendant
No.1, who is the plaintiff, claims that he is in lawful
possession and hence, prayed for relief of permanent
8
injunction. Defendant No.1 contended that he has
become absolute owner as a legatee under Will and he
is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule property and hence, prayed to decree the suit
for injunction filed in O.S.No.133/1989.
7.
The
plaintiff
and
defendant
No.1
to
substantiate their respec
