Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100245 OF 2017 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. BAYAVVA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, W/O. LATE SANGAPPA @ KENCHANGOUDA WALIKAR, NARASAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK: BADAMI, DISTRICT: BAGALAKOTE, PIN-587 201.
2. ANDANGOUDA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, S/O. LATE SANGAPPA @ KENCHANGOUDA WALIKAR, R/O: LAYADGUNDI, TALUK: BADAMI, DISTRICT: BAGALAKOTE, PIN-587 201.
3. BASAVARAJ, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, S/O. LATE SANGAPPA @ KENCHANGOUDA WALIKAR, R/O: LAYADGUNDI, TALUK: BADAMI, DISTRICT: BAGALAKOTE, PIN-587 201.
4. PREMA, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by W/O. NINGRARAAJGOUDA PATIL, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 R/O: LAYADGUNDI, TALUK: BADAMI, 12:07:14 +0530 DISTRICT: BAGALAKOTE, PIN-587 201.
… APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURUBASAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA BENNAL, HAS EXPIRED ON 05-06-2017 I.E. AFTER JUDGMENT, HENCE, HE IS NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS., RESPONDENT No. 1 TO 4 ARE LEGAL HEIRS.
1. NEELAVVA, AGE: 60 YEARS, W/O: LATE GURUBASAPPA BENAL, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BASAVANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: HUNGUND, BAGALAKOTE-587 118.
2. MALLAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS, S/O: LATE GURUBASAPPA BENAL, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BASAVANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: HUNGUND, BAGALAKOTE-587 118.
3. YANKANNA AGE: 37 YEARS, S/O: LATE GURUBASAPPA BENAL, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BASAVANAL VILLAGE, TALUK: HUNGUND, BAGALAKOTE-587 118.
4. SIDDAMMA, AGE: MAJOR, W/O. MALLIKARJUN MARAKACHITTI @ ROLLI, NEAR SANNA AGASI, BASAVANNA DEVAR GUDI, MALLAPUR-587 111, TQ: AND DIST: BAGALAKOTE.
5. GIRIYAVVA, AGE: 60 YEARS, W/O. VENKAPPA PUJARI, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, VASAN VILLAGE, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG, PIN-582 207.
6. MUDIYAVVA, AGE: 61 YEARS, W/O. RANGANGOUDA PATIL, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, NARASAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE, PIN-587 201.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE R1 TO R4;
R5 AND R6-SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED IN O.S. NO.34 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUNGUND.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
Specific performance is a discretionary relief; mere validity of a contract does not guarantee enforcement if it results in inequity or hardship to the other party.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Appeal against decree for specific performance - The plaintiffs claimed entitlement to a registered sale agreement but the trial court decreed in their favor, requiring defendants to execute the sale deed. The defendants contended the agreement was fabricated and unfair. The court stressed that granting specific performance is discretionary and not automatic when based on mere legality. It found the plaintiff's claim involved significant disadvantages to the defendants, indicating inequity within the transaction. The trial court failed to properly exercise discretion in light of these considerations. (Paras 1, 10, 21, 23)
(B) Discretionary Relief - Courts must evaluate all circumstances and potential hardships, balancing interests of both parties; mere proof of an agreement does not guarantee relief if it would unjustly advantage the plaintiff or cause hardship to the defendant. (Paras 1, 20, 24)
Facts of the case:
The suit for specific performance arose after the plaintiff's claim of a substantial portion of land was denied by the defendants who argued the sale agreement was invalid and created under false pretenses. The trial court granted relief without adequately referencing the relevant hardships the defendants faced.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, the trial court's judgment altered to refund the earnest money with interest, against the performance decree granted originally.
Issues: The primary issues included the validity of the sale agreement and whether specific performance should be granted under the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal court reasoned that while an agreement was valid, significant hardship to the defendants outweighed the lawful rights of the plaintiff, demonstrating the critical nature of discretionary evaluation in specific performance matters as per Section 20 of the Act.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the decree for specific performance is set aside, with direction for taxpayer refund. (Paras 23, 24)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
The appeal is filed by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.34/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hungund, thereby, the suit filed for specific performance of is decreed in full granting decree of specific performance directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants’ father namely Sangappa, who is the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and son of defendant No.5, are the absolute owners and in possession over the suit schedule property. The said Sangappa had executed registered agreement of sale dated 28.07.2009 in favour of plaintiffs for total sale consideration of Rs.12,30,000/- and received part of the sale consideration amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and it was agreed to receive the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed, but the possession was not given. The said original vendor Sangappa passed away on 31.07.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff has got issued legal notice on 04.06.2012 calling upon the defendants to execute registered sale deed, but the defendants have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for specific performance of the contract.
4. On the other hand, the defendants have appeared and filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the defendants’ father Sangappa had not been executed any agreement of sale and never intended to sell the suit property and agreement of sale is concocted one and by false representation, making believe Sangappa, such a forged agreement of sale is created; therefore, the entire agreement of sale is denied. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that one Sangappa @ Kenchanagouda Walikar, agreed to sale the suit Land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 19 acres 39 guntas of Benal village, for consideration amount of Rs.12,30,000/- for his financial crises and in order to made out family necessities and bonafide problems and executed agreement of sale deed on 28.07.2009, by receiving an earnest of Rs.12,00,000/-?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that he is ever ready to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether plaintiff further proves that in spite of issuance of legal notice on 04.06.2012, defendants failed to perform their part of contract?
4. Whether defendants prove that alleged agreement of sale deed is created and concocted one and same is without consideration?
5. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and two more witnesses examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-10. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.2 is examined as DW-1 and three more witnesses examined as DW-2 to DW-4 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.D-1 to D-8.
7. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in full filed for specific performance, thereby directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/-. The Trial Court assigned reason that Ex.P-1- agreement of sale and its execution proved by the attesting witnesses PW-2 and PW-3. Further, from the evidence of DW-2, who is an attesting witness, though in examination-in-chief has stated that he has not witnessed the sale transaction as per the agreement of sale, but in the course of cross-examination he had admitted regarding the sale talks and execution of the agreement of sale and going over to Sub-Registrar
