Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19429
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P.SANDESH, J
KRISHNA NAIK S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
RAVIKUMAR K.T., S/O LATE K.G.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. RAMESH NAIK L.
For the Respondents: SRI. K.A.HARIKRISHNA
The courts upheld the validity of a sale agreement dismissing claims of fraud, affirming specific performance rights under contractual obligations.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific performance - Did the defendants fraudulently execute a sale agreement under undue pressure? - The plaintiff claimed specific performance of a sale agreement executed for scheduled properties - The defendants contended that the agreement was obtained fraudulently, but the courts concluded that it was a valid agreement, and the plaintiff had performed all conditions - Both lower courts upheld the plaintiff’s claim to specific performance. (Paras 2, 4, 7)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The burden lay on the defendants to prove their claim of fraud regarding the agreement, which they failed to do - Registered documents have a presumption of authenticity and should be regarded as valid unless proven otherwise. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellants entered into an agreement to buy property from the respondent, paying Rs.7,00,000 as earnest money but faced claims of fraudulent execution from the respondent. Both courts validated the sale agreement as legitimate.
Findings of Court:
The findings affirmed the validity of the sale agreement given the authenticity of the registered document and lack of proof for claims of fraudulent actions by the appellants.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the sale agreement was executed fraudulently or legitimately.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the defendants failed to substantiate their claims of fraud, affirming that the registered nature of the agreement supported its legitimacy.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims for specific performance based on valid sale agreement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court confirms validity of evidence supporting the sale. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellate court dismisses claims of fraudulent execution. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court rules to dismiss the appeal based on reaffirmed facts. (Para 8) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants in order to overcome their legal necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties and executed registered agreement of sale on 03.04.2019 agreeing to sell the scheduled properties in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and received earnest money of Rs.7,00,000/- and remaining balance amount payable is is Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contented by the plaintiff that plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the sale agreement is obtained fraudulently by plaintiff in view of debt of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and obtained the said document. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of specific performance.
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly the plaintiff got examined 3 witnesses including the plaintiff as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other hand, defendants have examined 7 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.7 and also got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The Trial Court having considered the material on record particularly, document is a registered document and D.W.3 is a consenting witness to the said document and also taken note of the material available on record, particularly the admissions on the part of witnesses and when the specific defence was taken that fraudulently obtained the document. The Trial Court having considered the documents which have been placed on record in paragraph No.52 comes to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 was signed by the parties and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have signed the same and there is a specific reference about the defendant agreeing to sell the suit properties and defendants having received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- executed the document and document is also dated 04.04.2019 and also there is a recital about the flow of title to the defendants that it was an ancestral property and when such details are given in the agreement of sale and received the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance payment was only Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of witnesses in paragraph No.53 and made an observation that it is emerged during the course of evidence that D.W.3 during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he studied up to 10th standard and D.W.6 is studied upto PUC and D.W.7 is studied upto 10th Standard and subscribe their signature in English language, even the defendant No.3's wife is signed in English language. The defendant No.1 has signed the document in Kannada language. He has signed the document only after consulting 3 to 4 persons in his village and two of them are attesting witnesses and they are only knowledgeable persons and also taken note of if an executant of a deed is literate, there will be initial presumption that the executant has affixed his signature only after understood its contents. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendants that they had no opportunity to read the documents before signing it and the same also taken note of in paragraph No.54 and the other material available on record also taken note of. The suggestion made to the P.W.1 that defendants would pay Rs.3,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and
