Basavaraj vs Padmavathi - 2023 Supreme(SC) 16

Q: Key Points

Synopsis: Respondent No. 1 executed agreement to sell land dated 13.03.2007 for Rs. 12,74,000 with Rs. 3 lakhs earnest money, due by 31.07.2007; buyer issued notice on 20.11.2007 for balance payment and sale deed execution, met with denial; suit for specific performance filed 14.02.2008 decreed by Trial Court on 30.09.2011 finding execution, earnest payment, and readiness/willingness based on averments, evidence, witnesses, lack of cross-examination, and post-decree deposit of Rs. 9,74,000; High Court reversed on 27.11.2020, holding no proof of funds via passbook, affirmed on review 06.12.2021; Supreme Court allowed appeals, quashed High Court orders as erroneous in drawing adverse inference absent demand for passbook, restored Trial Court decree subject to further Rs. 10 lakhs deposit by buyer within eight weeks, sale deed execution by seller within two weeks thereafter, and seller's withdrawal of deposited amount with interest.[1000766710001] (!) (!) (!) [1000766710005] (!) (!) (!) [1000766710006][1000766710007][judgement_subject][IMPORTANT POINT]

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 16

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Basavaraj – Appellant
Versus
Padmavathi – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) Nishanth Patil, AOR Mr. K Parameshwar, Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv. Mr. Ayush P Shah, Adv. Ms. Sregurupriya, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Vinayaka Pandit, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Synopsis: Respondent No. 1 executed agreement to sell land dated 13.03.2007 for Rs. 12,74,000 with Rs. 3 lakhs earnest money, due by 31.07.2007; buyer issued notice on 20.11.2007 for balance payment and sale deed execution, met with denial; suit for specific performance filed 14.02.2008 decreed by Trial Court on 30.09.2011 finding execution, earnest payment, and readiness/willingness based on averments, evidence, witnesses, lack of cross-examination, and post-decree deposit of Rs. 9,74,000; High Court reversed on 27.11.2020, holding no proof of funds via passbook, affirmed on review 06.12.2021; Supreme Court allowed appeals, quashed High Court orders as erroneous in drawing adverse inference absent demand for passbook, restored Trial Court decree subject to further Rs. 10 lakhs deposit by buyer within eight weeks, sale deed execution by seller within two weeks thereafter, and seller's withdrawal of deposited amount with interest.[1000766710001] (!) (!) (!) [1000766710005] (!) (!) (!) [1000766710006][1000766710007][judgement_subject][IMPORTANT POINT]

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgments and orders dated 27.11.2020 and 06.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 5033/2011 and Review Petition (RP) No. 200036/2021 respectively, by which, the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondents herein-original defendants and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 16

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNABasavaraj – AppellantVersusPadmavathi – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Basavaraj – Appellant
Versus
Padmavathi – Respondent