Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 4569

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O LATE S. NANJUNDAIAH, KUM. SUMANA D/O LATE S. NANJUNDAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SMT. BHAGYAMMA NOORUNNISABEGUM W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, CHI. VISHAL S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, SRI. CHOODAPPA S/O LATE DODDAIAH – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 139 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Sruti Chaganti, Sri. S. Sunil
For the Respondents: Sri. T.N. Viswanath, Sri. V. Vishwanath Shetty

A contract for specific performance requires proof of a valid agreement and readiness to perform; the court must consider expert testimony regarding forgery.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(1)(c) and Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance of contract - The learned Trial Court erred in proceeding on the assumption that the agreement was validly executed despite substantial evidence indicating forgery, and in failing to establish the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. (Paras 17, 22)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73 - Comparison of signatures in disputed documents - The reliance on the handwriting expert’s opinion was crucial for establishing fraud in the agreement, yet was ignored - The court must consider these findings before determining validity. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The suit was initiated for specific performance regarding an Agreement to Sell concerning properties owned by the deceased S. Nanjundaiah. The plaintiffs alleged a valid agreement and paid earnest money, while defendants claimed forgery and lack of consideration.

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found the Agreement to Sell proved, ordering the return of earnest money, which this Court overturned based on the failure to substantiate key claims regarding the agreement and payment. The evidential weight was improperly assessed, leading to a misinterpretation of legal standards.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs established that a valid Agreement to Sell existed, and if they were ready and willing to perform their obligations under that agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance cannot be granted without proving the existence of a valid and enforceable contract and readiness to perform obligations. The likelihood of forgery necessitates careful scrutiny of evidence, particularly expert testimony, under the Evidence Act. (Paras 17, 22)

Result: This Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement and cancelled the order for refunding the advance with interest, instead allowing the appeal in favor of the defendants.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the case and contract execution disputes. (Para 1 , 3)
2. claims of the defendants against the plaintiffs' assertions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. discussion on the importance of handwriting analysis. (Para 11 , 12)
4. assessment of the contract's validity and the factors for specific performance. (Para 17 , 22)

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants seeking to set-aside the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2014 in O.S.No.771/2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal.(hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment"). By the Impugned Judgment, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was partly-decreed and their prayer for the relief of specific performance of the contract was dismissed. In addition, the appellants/defendants were directed to refund to the respondents/plaintiffs the advance paid in sum of Rs.16,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit. The parties are also referred to as per their title before the learned Trial Court.

2. This Court by its order dated on 16.04.2015 has while admitting the appeal stayed the execution of the decree.

3. The facts that are relevant are, that one Sri.S.Nanjundaiah, who was the husband of appellant No.1/defendant No.1 and father of appellant No.2/defendant No.2 is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.89 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and Sy.No.28 measuring 0.20 guntas, both situated at Bhaktipura village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit properties’). The said Sri.S.Nanjundaiah agreed to sell the suit properties for Rs.21,25,000/- for which purpose an Agreement to Sell dated 15.11.2002 was executed in favour of one Sri. Krishnappa and Sri. Choodappa (plaintiffs) [hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement to Sell”] and an advance sale consideration of Rs.16,25,000/- was paid. It was further agreed by the parties in the Agreement to Sell that the registered sale deed would be executed after receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Agreement to Sell, however did not set out any time frame for the completion of the sale.

3.1. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that the said Sri. S.Nanjundaiah kept postponing the execution of the sale deed for one or another reason and subsequently the said Sri. S.Nanjundaiah passed away. The plaintiffs/ respondents approached the appellants/defendants on several occasions and requested them to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount. However, the appellants/defendants failed to do so. The plaintiffs/respondents were thus constrained to send a legal notice dated 21.09.2011.

3.2. Since in spite of service of the notice calling upon the appellants/defendants to supply the revenue documents and execute the sale deed and receive the balance consideration, the appellants/defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree for specific performance.

3.3. The appellants/defendants entered appearance and filed their Written Statement denying all the averments in the plaint. The appellants/defendants further contended that Sri. S.Nanjundaiah had not executed the Agreement to Sell since there was no legal or family necessity to enter into such an agreement. In addition, the appellants/defendants also took the defence that respondents/plaintiffs do not have the financial capacity to purchase the suit property or to pay the balance sale consideration. It was further stated that the Agreement to Sell has only been created with an intention to grab the suit properties.

3.4. On the basis of the pleadings and contentions of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. “Whether plaintiffs prove that the regarding executing an agreement dated 15.11.2002 by S. Nanjundaiah husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 4569

A contract for specific performance requires proof of a valid agreement and readiness to perform; the court must consider expert testimony regarding forgery.

Cases Referred (1)