IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2022 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. DAKSHAYINI @ CHANDRAKALA W/O K. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O K.R. EXTENSION, SADHANA ROAD TUMKURU CITY-572102.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED 54 YEARS Digitally signed

2. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY by AL BHAGYA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF AGED 53 YEARS KARNATAKA R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT ARAKERE VILALGE KASABA HOBLI-572106 TUMAKURU TQ AND DISTRICT

3. SRI. A.S. HANUMAKKA W/O LAKSHMAIAH D/O LATE SIDDAIAH MAJOR R/O HALEGUBBI A.K. COLONY, PRABHUVANAHALLI POST GUBBI TALUK-572 216.

TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

4. SMT A.S. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O NARASIMHARAJU D/O LATE SIDDAIAH MAJOR R/O THIMLAPURA, A.K. COLONY ARAKERE POST TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT TUMKURU-572106.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN .M.N, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED IN OS No.385/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of contract filed in O.S.No.385/2015.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff has filed a suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 24.03.2011. Plaintiff asserts that one Siddaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have offered to sell the sites within a period of 7 months. As per the plaintiff's version, it is pleaded that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were required to get the land converted and obtain necessary sanction from the Town Planning Authority for formation of sites. Plaintiff therefore specifically pleaded that under the agreement, she was entitled to secure four sites. Plaintiff therefore contended that though seven months time is pleaded, time was not the essence of the contract and the said period would commence only after defendants secure the approved layout plan.

Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Plaintiff has alleged that despite expiry of seven months, defendants failed to apply for conversion of the suit land while ancestor Siddaiah died on 21.05.2012. Plaintiff has also pleaded that defendants expressed their inability to get the land converted. After persistent demand, it is averred that defendants applied for conversion on 25.01.2014 and they assured that they would execute sale deed in respect of four sites immediately after securing conversion order and layout plan.

The present suit is filed alleging that despite securing conversion order, they have not disclosed it to the plaintiff and only when plaintiff came to know that defendants are selling the sites having secured conversion order, issued a legal notice on 28.04.2015 calling upon defendants to execute the sale deed. Since defendants failed to comply the terms of the agreement and failed to reply to the notice, the present suit is filed.

Defendants appeared through their counsel and filed common written statement. The defendants on the contrary disputed the very agreement dated 24.03.2011. Though defendants admitted that 25 guntas of land had fallen to the share of Siddaiah and further admitted that they have secured conversion order to be used for residential purpose and an approved layout plan is also secured, defendants on the contrary alleged that the suit agreement is fraudulently secured by plaintiff and it is a concocted document.

Plaintiff in support of her contention examined herself