This is a second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform after the non-alienation period expired.
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 DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
R.S.A. NO.5806/2013 (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE)
BETWEEN :
MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAVARAJ KONIN, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM, 591307.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R H ANGADI & H S NAYAK, ADVOCATES)
AND :
: 2 :
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DINESH.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4; R1(A) & R1(B) ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED:06.09.2013, PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHANAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED:19.03.2013 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.72/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KHANAPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR AMDISSION THIS DAY, THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S.No.72/2008, on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur.
: 3 :
of earnest money to the defendant No.1 and pursuant to the agreement, the defendant No.1 transferred the possession of the suit property to him. It is stated that since the defendant No.1 did not show any interest in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff even after expiry of 15 years, he demanded the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, but, defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed. In January 2008, the Forest Authorities came and attempted to make a mark on the suit property. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed. But, the defendant No.1 gave an evasive reply. Therefore, he brought a suit for specific performance of contract.
: 4 :
and willingness to perform his part of the contract and that the suit was also barred by time. Therefore, the suit came to be dismissed.
: 5 :
6. The appellant’s counsel argues that though both the Courts have dismissed the suit, but there are divergent findings on two issues. He further argues that because there was a non- alienation clause in the agreement, the plaintiff could not file a suit till completion of the alienation clause, and conversion of the suit land from new tenure land to old tenure as per the conditions found in the agreement. Therefore, it is his argument that the finding given by the Courts below, regarding readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is erroneous. He relied upon the two judgements of this Court in support of his argument. The first judgement is in the case of Syed Zaheer and Others Vs. C.V.Siddveerappa reported in ILR 2010 KAR 765 and K.S.Srinivasaiah and Another Vs.Munivenkatamma reported 2010 (3) Kar.L.J.80.
: 6 :
alienated for certain period and therefore, as per the principles laid down in this judgment, the Courts below should not have given a finding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
: 7 :
might have got issued a legal notice in the year 2008 and filed a suit. The trial Court has clearly observed that plaintiff came before the Court after lapse of several years, and therefore, the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Vmb
Sd/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should allow a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding 4 acres of land where the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness.
Whether the finding regarding limitation and the non-fulfillment of non-alienation conditions in the agreement justified the dismissal of the suit.
Whether the parties below were justified in concluding the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract despite proof of agreement execution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Syed Zaheer and Others Vs. C.V. SiddveerappaReferred¶34
Syed Zaheer and Others Vs. C.V. Siddveerappa reported in ILR 2010 KAR 765 · Who else cites this
K.S. Srinivasaiah and Another Vs. MunivenkatammaReferred¶34
K.S. Srinivasaiah and Another Vs. Munivenkatamma reported 2010 (3) Kar.L.J. 80
MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAVARAJ KONIN
1. BALASAHEB S/O. SHANKARARAO SAWANT (DECEASED) BY LRS
1(A) NARENDRA S/O. BALASAHEB SAWANT
1(B) GAJENDRA S/O. BALASAHEB SAWANT
2. NAMADEV S/O. PARASHURAM PATIL
3. VITHAL S/O. PARASHURAM PATIL
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
