Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22674

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

NC: 2026:KHC:18152-DB

RFA No. 2168 of 2018

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2018 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. T.M. BASAVARAJ,

S/O MANJAPPA,

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(a) SMT. PARAMA,

W/O LATE MANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS,

R/AT. TAYAR STREET,

BEHIND GANAPATHI PANDAL,

TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. L. VINODH,

S/O SRI. P. LOKESH,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/AT KOTE,

AJJAMPURA TOWN,

TARIKERE TOWN,

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

2. SMT. SHARADA,

D/O. LATE M.S.S. MANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/AT. YAUAR STREET,

TARIKERE TOWN & TALUK,

NOW RESIDING AT:

LOKASUNDARI RAMAN,

K.S.C.L.W. NO.135, 3RD CROSS,

WORKING WOMEN HOSTEL,

JAI MAHAL EXTENSION,

BENGALURU - 560 046.

3. SMT. M. MAHALAXMI,

D/O. M.S. MANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

R/AT. 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN,

IEW COLONY,

NANDINI LAYOUT POST,

SHANKARANAGAR,

MAHALAXMI EXTENSION,

BENGALURU - 560 096.

4. SMT. M. KAMALA,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

D/O. M.S. MANJAPPA,

W/O. SRI. B.S. KRISHANMURTHY,

R/AT. SIDDARUDHA NAGARA,

NEAR VISHWESHWARAIAH CONVENT,

BHADRAVATHI TOWN,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

5. SMT. M. KAVITHA,

D/O M.S. MANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

W/O SRI. B. NAGARAJU,

R/AT. NO. 62, 16TH CROSS,

VAIYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 003.

6. SMT. M. SUSHILA (LAXMI),

D/O. M.S. MANJAPPA,

W/O K.C. MOHAN,

R/AT. NO.114, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,

BENGALURU.

7. SMT. M. CHANDRAKALA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

D/O. M.S. MANJAPPA,

W/O. SRI. A. RAMESH,

R/AT. NO.711, MARUTHI NILAYA,

68TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,

KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,

BENGALURU - 560 078.

8. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI,

D/O LATE SRINIVAS,

W/O. LATE T.M. BASAVARAJ,

R/AT. KARLAMMA TEMPLE STREET,

M.G. ROAD,

CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN - 577 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S., ADVOCATE FOR R1,

SRI. H.R. RAGHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7,

SRI. K.S. GANESHA & S.Y. SUMA DIXIT,

ADVOCATES FOR R8)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.09.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.53/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC., TARIKERE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakash T Hebbar
For the Respondents: Balagangadhar G S, H.R. Raghav, K.S. Ganesha, S.Y. Suma Dixit

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness, including financial capacity, from the date of the agreement until the final decree. The court has the discretion to deny specific performance if such readiness is not established.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance of contract - Readiness and willingness - Mandatory requirement - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of contract from date of agreement until final decision of suit - Mere filing of suit within period of limitation does not dispense with necessity to prove continuous readiness and willingness - Explanation 2 to Section 16(c) requires proof of availability of funds to discharge obligations. (Paras 37, 38, 45, 46)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - First Appellate Court is duty-bound to examine entire evidence and record its own findings on facts and law - Appellate Court has power to reassess evidence regarding plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness - Order 41 Rules 31 and 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Paras 31, 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into a sale agreement for land and paid a small fraction of the total consideration as an advance, agreeing to pay the balance within a three-month period. Years later, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial court. The defendant challenged this decree, citing financial incapacity, lack of continuous readiness, and questioning why the suit was filed only at the end of the limitation period.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to maintain or demonstrate sufficient funds to pay the balance consideration throughout the period from the agreement until the date of judgment. The evidence presented, such as bank passbooks, showed deposits were made long after the contract deadline, failing the test of continuous readiness. Given the discretionary nature of specific performance, a party cannot ignore time stipulations in the agreement and merely file a suit within the statutory limitation period without establishing financial capacity.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and whether the Appellate Court should interfere with the trial court's decree of specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: The continuous readiness and willingness of a plaintiff is a condition precedent for the grant of specific performance. Since the plaintiff could not prove financial capacity during the years following the agreement and waited until the expiry of the limitation period to file the suit, the court exercised its discretion to deny specific performance, ordering a refund of the advance amount with interest instead.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; decree for specific performance set aside and modified to refund of advance with 12% interest.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

The defendant is in appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, calling in question the Judgment and Decree dated 11.09.2018 in OS.No.53/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C, Tarikere.¹1 'Trial Court' for short

2. Under the impugned Judgment and Decree, the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance has been decreed directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by receiving balance consideration amount of Rs.87,00,000/- from the plaintiff within three months from the date of the Judgment.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

The plaintiff claims that the defendant is the owner and in possession of property bearing Sy.No.165 to the extent of 5 acres 12 guntas situated at Haliyuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk (suit schedule property).²2 'SSP' for short.

It is the further case that the defendant represented the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the property as he has purchased it from the previous owner and the SSP stands in his name. Since both plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other, the defendant offered to sell the SSP for his domestic expenses. Upon deliberations, on 06.09.2012, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.92,00,000/-. Accordingly, a registered sale agreement was executed under which, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid towards advance sale consideration.

It is his further case that as per the terms of the contract, plaintiff has agreed to pay balance consideration at the time of registration of regular sale deed, whenever the defendant was called to do so, within three months from the date of agreement.

He further claims that he has requested the defendant several times to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount. However, the defendant on one or the other pretext, stating that, there are certain hurdles in the execution of the registration of sale deed, one among them is not in possession of the SSP as per the sale deed and sought time for the correction of the same and undertook to execute the registered sale deed after the issue is cleared. On 22.06.2013, the defendant has executed another unregistered agreement of sale in continuation of the earlier agreement stating that suit filed by the defendant in OS.No.139/2012 is pending before the Civil Judge's Court at Tarikere, and execute sale deed thereafter.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was and he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.87,00,000/- but it is the defendant who is postponing the same. However, the defendant is not coming forward to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff left with no other alternatives, filed a suit in OS.No.53/2015 seeking specific performance of contract dated 06.09.2012, with alternative prayer for refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum.

5. Upon notice, the defendant entered appearance engaging his counsel and filed a written statement denying the plaint averments, taking a specific contention that the defendant is suffering from haemophilia and he is unable to walk. The plaintiff taking advantage of the innocence of defendant, misused him and being in a financially dominant position over the poor persons like the defendant, plaintiff used to get signature over stamp papers as and when required stating that the signatures are necessary for his financial business to maintain the accounts and to submit the financial returns to the Government. Though, the defendant at no point of time has agreed to sell the SSP and he was not having any such intention to alienate, the plaintiff has taken the defendant to the Sub-Registrar Office, Tarikere, stating that his signature is necessa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22674

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness, including financial capacity, from the date of the agreement until the final decree. The court has the discretion to deny specific performance if such readiness is not established.

Cases Referred (12)