Dismissed

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2019MFA/4227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the miscellaneous first appeal filed by an appellant seeking to set aside the dismissal of an injunction application. The lower court had denied the injunction because the appellant failed to deposit the balance sale consideration despite being ready and willing to perform, causing hardship to the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous first application was disposed of without interference with the lower court order. No costs awarded.

Smt. Dakshayini Vs Smt. Rathnamma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4227 OF 2018 (CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.DAKSHAYINI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O.SRI J.RAVI PRAKASH

¶7

R/AT NAGASANDRA VILLAGE YEMALURU POST

¶8

BENGALURU-560 034 ... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O.SRI M.RAMAPPA

¶12

SRI R.RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O.M.RAMAPPA

¶13

SRI NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O.SRI M.RAMAPPA

¶14

SMT.NETHRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O.M.RAMAPPA

¶15

SMT.RADHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/O.M.RAMAPPA

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶17

K.R.PURAM BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036 ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(r) OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE IN OS.NO.811/2015 ON IA.NO.1 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in OS.No.811/2015 on I.A.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, wherein the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant.

¶25

It is the case of the appellant that an agreement of sale dated 07.08.2012 was entered into between the appellant and one, Shri M.Ramappa along with the respondents herein. The total consideration of the suit schedule property as per the said agreement is Rs.1,11,51,360/-. Out of which, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 07.08.2012 as on the date of the agreement. As per the agreement of sale, the appellant was required to pay the entire sale consideration amount within a period of four months. Thereafter, she has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.08.2012, Rs.10,00,000/- on

¶26

¶27

15.10.2012 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.01.2013. After the payment of amount as stated above, the appellant was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.76,51,360/-. It is the statement made by the appellant that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract and she was having sufficient source to pay the balance sale consideration but the respondents have neglected to complete the sale transaction instead they indulged in demanding further sale consideration and receiving the same to meet their expenses. Thereafter, the appellant got issued a legal notice on 24.02.2015. After issuance of the said notice, the appellant has filed a suit for specific performance. The appellant also submits that as per the agreement of sale, the respondents were bound to produce all the necessary documents in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶28

The defence taken by the respondents objecting the application is that the appellant has not taken any steps to tender the balance sale consideration of Rs.76,51,360/-. If the same has been paid by the appellant, the respondents would have got the sale deed executed in her favour. In view of the fact that the appellant did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration, the respondents were forced to mortgage

¶29

¶30

the suit schedule property and availed loan for treatment of Shri Ramappa, who was suffering from cancer. It is also the statement of the respondents that they were badly in need of money to meet the expenses for the treatment. The appellant has not disputed the fact that Shri Ramappa was suffering from cancer and he was undergoing treatment for the same. The appellant also admits that she has not paid any amount pursuant to the payment made on 21.07.2013 to the respondents. When the question posed by the Court to the appellant as to whether she has deposited the balance consideration or any amount before the Court below at the time of filing of the suit, the appellant states that she was ready and willing to deposit the same at the time of filing of the suit but she has not deposited any amount before the Court below. Therefore, the respondents due to the urgent requirement of finance for the treatment of Shri Ramappa, were forced to mortgage suit schedule property, which was a burden on the respondents.

¶31

The appellant under the circumstances has not taken

¶32

any steps to pay balance sale consideration amount or call upon the respondents to produce the required documents which she wanted till the date of filing of the suit except for the

¶33

¶34

legal notice dated 24.02.2015, which was just before filing of the suit. Therefore, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has not made out any prima facie case for grant of injunction in her favour. It is also seen from the records that hardship and irreparable injury has already been caused to the respondents. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds put-forth by the appellant to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in OS.No.811/2015 on IA.No.1. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any observations with regard to the merits of the matter.

¶36

Pending application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dakshayini v. Smt. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Sri. Subbarayappa

Sri Shivanna Vs Sri S v Somashekar

The Union of India Vs Sri Darshan G

Dr Hotti Chandrashekar Vs Raichur District

Smt. Gowramma Vs Dr. Syed Mohammed Anees

Dr Hotti Chandrashekar Vs Raichur District