IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2010 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT PRABHA W/O SADANANDA SHET,AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.562, 52ND CROSS,3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,BLORE.560010 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. K. CHENNAPPA S/O HANUMAIAH AGED 67 YEARS RETIRED FROM KSRTC AS DRAFTSMENT K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-27.

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF NOW R/AT NO.4, NEW NO.70/1 KARNATAKA 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN HOSAHALLI, BANGALORE-560040.

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs 1(A) SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE K. CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 1(B) C. MOHANKUMAR S/O LATE K. CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

1(C) SMT. HEMALATHA D/O LATE K. CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.4 NEW NO. 70/1, 4^TH CROSS

2^ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI BANGALORE-560 040.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R;

V/O DATED 24.08.2015 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(A-C)

ARE HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION R1(A), R1(B) AND R1(C))

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W O-XLI R-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.3020/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.3020/1993 by the trial Court dismissing the suit for specific performance on the ground that, plaintiff has failed to establish her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.

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

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

The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance placing reliance on an agreement of sale executed by the defendant on 02.02.1986. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the total sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs.64,000/-. The plaintiff asserts that a sum of Rs.45,000/- was paid in all, and that the defendant executed a receipt dated 25.09.1987 acknowledging receipt of the said amount and admitting that only a balance of Rs.19,000/- remained payable. It is further pleaded that under Clause 6 of the agreement, the defendant delivered vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession of the property ever since.

4. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant had availed a loan and had agreed to execute the sale deed after clearing all encumbrances. According to the plaintiff, she subsequently learnt that the defendant had an outstanding loan liability of Rs.19,000/-. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to clear the dues and complete the sale transaction, the defendant allegedly avoided execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff, therefore, asserted that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that the delay in execution of the sale deed was solely attributable to the conduct of the defendant.

5. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, followed by an additional written statement. The defendant contended that there was inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in seeking enforcement of the agreement, amounting to acquiescence and laches, and that such conduct itself constituted breach resulting in cancellation of the agreement. The defendant denied having received Rs.45,000/- and admitted receipt of only Rs.43,000/-. The assertion regarding subsisting loan liability was also seriously disputed. The defendant further contended that the suit was barred by limitation and sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court framed appropriate