This Regular Second Appeal challenged the confirmation of a suit decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The court held that the evidence established the agreement was duly executed and the plaintiff was ready and willing, dismissing the appeal.
The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.400/2013 (SP)
Between:
2
All are r/a Yalachahalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk 571 130. …. Appellants.
(By Sri Shanmukappa, adv. For Kesvy & Co. Advs.) And: Jayarama, S/o Chikkannegowda, Aged about 40b years, R/a Chikkanahalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk 571 130. …. Respondent.
(By Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma, Adv.)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.69/2012 dated 18.1.2013 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Mysore, etc.
This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2013 in R.A.No.69/2013 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Mysore whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.No.403/2009 dated 12.12.2011 on the file of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysore has been confirmed.
respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.
of the agreement of sale dated 1.9.2006. The contention of the plaintiff is that the land bearing Sy.No.99/P56 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas of Yelachahalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk was allotted to the first defendant by the Government. The defendants
4
approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the schedule property for a valuable consideration of Rs.9 lakhs. Accordingly, an agreement-cum-sale was entered into between the parties. On the date of the agreement, plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.1 lakh. It was agreed that balance of the amount would be paid within three months subject to the condition of defendants obtaining permission for transfer of the schedule property from the Government in favour of the plaintiff. In the month of January, 2007, the defendants requested the plaintiff that they require additional funds for their necessity. They requested the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards the balance sale consideration. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the defendants on 2.1.2007, which has been acknowledged by the defendants. However, the defendants have refused to execute the sale deed.
5
running chit fund business in his village. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had participated in the chit. They invested Rs.4,000/- every month with the plaintiff. During April, 2006, the 4th defendant withdrew the amount. Since the defendants were outsiders of the village of the plaintiff, as a practice, he asked for signatures of members of defendants family on a blank paper as a security. The family agreed to put their signatures on a blank paper trusting the plaintiff. On completion of chit group and prompt payment of balance installments, the defendants family was insisting for return of the
documents. However, the plaintiff failed to return the said documents and misused the trust reposed by them. They have denied that the documents executed by them is towards the sale of the property in question. They have also denied that they had approached the plaintiff for additional funds as contended by the plaintiff.
6
notice was issued to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed. Secondly, it is contended that the agreement at Ex.P1 is not intended for the sale of the property. The plaintiff has taken the signature of the defendants as security as he was doing the chit business. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not
7
established that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree.
agreement at Ex.P1 dated 1.9.2006. It is their contention that they have put their signatures on the blank paper, which was misused by the plaintiff and created the agreement of sale. It is the further case of the defendants that plaintiff has been doing chit business. The defendants were also participating as members at the time of disbursement of the chit amount. The plaintiff has obtained the signatures on the blank paper, which has been misused by him. They have denied the receipt of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs under the
said document.
8
executed the agreement-Ex.P1 on 1.9.2006 and put their signature and received earnest money of Rs.1 lakh. P.W1 has identified the signature of the defendants on Ex.P1. Though the defendants have denied the execution of the agreement of sale, they have admitted their signatures on Ex.P1. D.W1 admits in page 5 of his crossexamination that there is no ill-will between him and the attesting witness of Ex.P1. He also admits that attesting witness to the receipt at Ex.P2 is from Chikkanahalli Village. The attesting witness of Ex.P2 was examined as P.W2. He has stated that D.W1 to D.W4 have received a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on 2.1.2007 and executed Ex.P1. He identified the signature of defendant Nos.1 to 4 on the said receipt. The other witnesses have also spoken in support of the plaintiff. The defendants have not produced any documents to show that plaintiff was running the chit business. The trial Court
on appreciation of the materials on record has concluded that the
9
agreement has been duly executed by the defendants. In so far as readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is concerned, he has already paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the defendants. The plaintiff has stated that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants have not come forward to execute
the sale deed. Under the agreement, three months' time was stipulated to execute the sale deed from 1.9.2006. The nonalienation clause of five years had expired during the year 2010 itself. Therefore, there is no hurdle for execution of the sale deed. In so far as the additional documents are concerned, the first Appellate Court has clearly held that those documents are not necessary for deciding the case on hand. I am entirely in agreement with the reasoning of the first Appellate Court. The plaintiff has also established that he had sufficient funds for payment of balance of Rs.4 lakhs.
10
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/JUDGE.
BMM/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the agreement of sale was executed by the defendants or was misused from a security paper for chit fund purposes.
Whether the plaintiff has established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nagegowda
Sundaramma
Jayalakshmi
Prakash
Prathima
Jayarama
S. Abdul Nazeer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
