Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22681

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
Raju Shettigar – Appellant
Versus
S Shivaprakash – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1138 OF 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nanda Kishore
For the Respondents: G. Krishna Murthy, Ganapathi Bhat Vajralli

In a contract for the sale of immovable property, explicit clauses make time the essence of the contract despite a lack of general presumption. Partial payment post-deadline does not waive this condition, and a plaintiff must demonstrate continuous financial readiness to secure the discretionary relief of specific performance.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 and 27 - Specific Performance - Agreement for sale of immovable property - Time as essence of contract - Standard for admission of additional evidence - Requirement of readiness and willingness - Whether acceptance of partial payment after time-stipulated period waives time as essence - Court held that intention of parties to make time the essence was expressed in unequivocal and unambiguous language in the contract - Acceptance of a part payment does not automatically waive the time-limit clause - Burden lies on plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness throughout the duration of the agreement. (Paras 16, 26, 38, 40)

(B) Appellate Practice - Additional Evidence - Production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 - Requires adherence to stipulated grounds - Appellate Court is not a venue for conducting a re-trial or allowing parties to patch up weak points in their case after failure to exercise due diligence during trial. (Paras 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
An agreement for the sale of a property was executed with a three-month deadline for completion. The purchaser failed to tender the balance consideration within this period and sought to rely on a subsequent partial payment as a waiver of the time-essence clause. The seller issued a termination notice after the expiry of the deadline. The court of first instance decreed the suit for specific performance, leading to the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unambiguous language of the contract confirmed that time was the essence. The evidence of the purchaser's bank accounts indicated insufficient funds during the relevant period, contradicting the claim of constant readiness and willingness. The comparative hardship favors the sellers, who reside in the property, over the purchaser who intended a commercial use.

Issues: The primary issues were whether time was the essence of the contract despite receiving partial payment after the deadline, and whether the purchaser satisfied the legal requirement of being ready and willing to perform throughout the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: Time remains the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property when explicitly stipulated in the agreement; partial payment after the deadline does not invalidate this condition. A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and ability to pay, supported by credible financial evidence, which was absent here.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the lower court set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the agreement of sale and subsequent default. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. trial court issues, findings, and identified appellate questions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments concerning time as the essence and readiness/willingness. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. admissibility of additional evidence under order xli rule 27 cpc. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. time as essence and necessity of proving readiness/willingness. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
6. rejection of specific performance and order for refund. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.51/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

I PREFACE:-

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga in O.S.No.51/2011 dated 25.04.2015.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

II BACKGROUND:-

3. The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale dated 18.03.2011 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents etc., from selling, mortgaging or parting with the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of third party.

III THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT:-

4. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, was that the plaintiff was the proprietor of M/s. Shanthi Agencies situated at New Santhe Maidana, Chitradurga and carrying on the business of selling two wheeler TVS bikes and mopeds. The plaintiff wanted to establish a big showroom for which, he was in search of a suitable property and he came to know that the defendants' property was available for sale. The plaintiff approached the defendants for sale of their property. However, the defendants informed him that they had taken housing loan against the said property from the State Bank of India, Chitradurga Branch and that the loan had become due. It was further stated that the Bank had offered the defendants One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme for closing the loan account on payment of Rs.20,00,000/- within the month of March 2011.

5. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had also disclosed to him that another agreement of sale was executed by them in favour of Sri Nagaraja s/o late Chittanna and Smt. S.P. Bhagyamma w/o Vasantha Kumar on 24.08.2009 and had taken Rs.3,55,000/- from them. The said persons had filed a suit against the defendants in O.S.No.7/2010 before the Civil Court at Chitradurga. The said case was settled amicably for Rs.5,50,000/-.

6. The defendants made it known to the plaintiff that they did not have the money to repay the OTS amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the State Bank of India within the month of March 2011 to get the property released from mortgage and they did not even have the money to pay Rs.5,50,000/- in pursuance to the settlement in O.S.No.7/2010. Under the aforesaid precarious financial conditions of the defendants, they had decided to dispose off the property in question. Both the plaintiff and the defendants negotiated the sale price in presence of Sri Gurusiddanagouda and others and finally, the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22681

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAD K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJRaju Shettigar – AppellantVersusS Shivaprakash – RespondentREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1138 OF 2015

Cases Referred (12)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
Raju Shettigar – Appellant
Versus
S Shivaprakash – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1138 OF 2015