SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9472

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL
B VENKATARAJU S/O. LATE G BYRAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SMT TARABAI W/O. CHANGANLAL – Respondent
RFA 302/2009



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.302 OF 2009 (SP)

BETWEEN:

B. VENKATARAJU S/O. LATE G BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 72-B 4 MAGADI ROAD OLD TOLEGATE BANGALORE - 560 023.

... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT TARABAI W/O. CHAGANLAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO. 72/1 NEAR HALE TOLEGATE MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE - 560 023. 2 . SMT YESHODABAI W/O. S M MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO. 221/1 BALAJI ROAD TYAGARAJANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 028 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.K. NARAYANA SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 04.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.1299/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.01.2026 FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)

Defendant No.2 in O.S No.1299/1989 is before this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 04.10.2008 passed in the said suit on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.3), (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') whereby, the trial Court while decreeing the suit for specific performance, has directed defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to execute registered deed of sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of the judgment of the order. It has further directed plaintiff to pay a balance consideration of ₹ 3,00,000/- to defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No. 1, because he has paid the amount of ₹3,00,000/- to defendant No.1 while purchasing the schedule property under Ex.D5 dated 19.09.1996 and has further ordered that in the event of failure to execute the registered sale deed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled to get the registered sale deed through the process of the Court in execution by depositing the consideration amount of ₹3,00,000/- in the Court. It is further ordered that suit filed by the plaintiff claiming ₹5,000/- as additional advance paid by him was dismissed.

2. Subject matter of the suit is a site bearing No.5 situated near Hale Tolegate, Magadi Road, Bangalore-23, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south on the eastern side 34 feet, on the western side 37 feet, bounded on the east by : the site belonging to Hajee Pasha, west by : the property belonging to Byrappa, north by : police quarters compound and south by: Magadi Road (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property').

3. Originally plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The plaint was later amended on 09.10.1991 to include the prayer for direction to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

(a) That above suit is filed by plaintiff Smt. Tarabai, w/o Sri Chaganlal, against defendant No.1/Smt. Yashodabai for the relief of specific performance contending inter alia that;

(b) the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement dated 12.03.1988 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of ₹3,25,000/-. That in furtherance to the said sale agreement, on 12.03.1988 plaintiff had paid a sum of ₹25,000/- towards part payment of sale consideration. That the remaining sum of ₹3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid within 6 months and to obtain the registered deed of sale subject to defendant No.1 furnishing all the documents namely, (i) possession certificate from the Bangalore Development Authority, (ii) permission letter from the Urban Ceiling authorities, (iii) Khata and tax paid receipts from the Corporation etc., (c) That plaintiff in addition to the above had also paid a sum of ₹5,000/- towards the necessary expenditure en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top