High Court Cal. Dismissed the appeals filed by legal heirs of a deceased seller challenging a trial court decree which granted specific performance of a sale agreement to a purchaser, finding the purchaser was ready and willing.
The appeals were dismissed, confirming the trial court's decree for specific performance directed at the legal heirs to execute the sale deed.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
R.F.A.No.621 OF 2013
C.W. R.F.A.No.622 of 2013
IN RFA No.621/2013
BETWEEN:
C SAMPANGI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S
2 . S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED 47 YEARS,
3 . SARAVANA S/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED 41 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/A No.31, RANASINGPET, PUTTANNA GALLI, BANGALORE-53
4 . S.PRAMILA W/O G.SUBRAMANI,
2
D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT No.283, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE-3.
5 . S.VASANTHI W/O SHANMUGHAM, AGED 53 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, R/AT KRISHNAPURAM, ORRIGAM POST, K.G.F.
6 . S.MALLIKA W/O M.THYAGARAJ AGED 51 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE.
7 . S.PADMA W/O SRIRANGANATHAN AGED 43 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI R/AT LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K B S MANIAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
3
S/O LATE T REVANNA AGED 45 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT OLD NO.544, NEW NO.14, 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN, GOKUL, I PHASE II STAGE, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560 054. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHD.USMAN SHAIKH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.5893/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE XIVADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
IN RFA No.622/2013
BETWEEN:
C SAMPANGI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S
2 . S.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE C.SAMPANGI,
4
AGED 47 YEARS,
3 . SARAVANA S/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED 41 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/A No.31, RANASINGPET, PUTTANNA GALLI, BANGALORE-53
4 . S.PRAMILA W/O G.SUBRAMANI, D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT No.283, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS, BANGALORE-3.
5 . S.VASANTHI W/O SHANMUGHAM, AGED 53 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI, R/AT KRISHNAPURAM, ORRIGAM POST, K.G.F.
6 . S.MALLIKA W/O M.THYAGARAJ AGED 51 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE.
7 . S.PADMA W/O SRIRANGANATHAN AGED 43 YEARS D/O LATE C.SAMPANGI R/AT LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA,
5
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K B S MANIAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT OLD NO.544, NEW NO.14, 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN, GOKUL, I PHASE II STAGE, YESHWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-560 054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHD.USMAN SHAIKH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED IN O.S.No.11106/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE XIVADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY,
6
DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFITS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT BENGALURU DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 16-10-2012 in O.S.No.11106/1994 and
O.S.No.5893/1996.
Sampangi (defendants 1 to 7) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-10-2012 passed in O.S.No.5893/1996 and similarly RFA No.622/2013 filed by LRs of deceased C. Sampangi(Plaintiff) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1610-2012 passed in O.S.No.11106/1994. Both the appeals are filed against T. Revanna/defendant.
7
both the cases are same and each of them filed case against another.
seeks for specific performance of the agreement dated
4.3.1993 against C.Sampangi and in O.S.No.11106/1994 plaintiff- C. Sampangi seeks for declaration that the sale agreement dated 4-3-1993 as null and void and to direct to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and for liquidated damages by way of mesne profits against T.Revanna.
the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings as stood by them before the trial court or by their names.
8
6. Plaintiff-C Sampangi in O.S.No.11106/1994
is the absolute owner of the schedule property bearing No.544 (old) New N.14, 1st Cross, 7th Main, Gokul II Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-22 and on 4.3.1993 he entered into a sale agreement with defendant-T.Revanna to sell the schedule property measuring East- West 30 feet and North-South 30 feet for a cash consideration of Rs.3,15,000/-. At the time of execution of the sale agreement, Rs.90,000/advance amount was given to Mr.Sampangi by defendant-T. Revanna and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is to be paid within four months from the date of sale agreement. It is
also stated that it was agreed between the parties that on receipt of the balance sale consideration plaintiff-C.Sampangi shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant- T.Revanna. At the time of execution of the sale agreement it is stated that
9
plaintiff-C.Sampangi put defendant-T.Revanna in vacant possession of a shop and one residential house measuring 15 x 30 feet. In the agreement, plaintiff-C. Sampangi also agreed to attorn the tenancy of the remaining portion which was under the occupation of tenants. Plaintiff-C. Sampangi claims that he is ready and willing at all times for executing the registered sale deed, but defendant-T. Revanna willfully failed to perform his part of promise and as such during July 1993 a notice was sent by plaintiff-C. Sampangi calling upon defendant-T. Revanna to surrender the vacant possession of B property to the plaintiff and also forfeiting the advance amount and cancelled the sale agreement. However, at the intervention of well wishers, plaintiff-C. Sampangi extended further period of 45 days to conclude the contract. Accordingly, on 26-7-1993 both plaintiff-C. Sampangi and defendantT. Revanna have entered into (shara) or endorsement
10
on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- and the extension was made by 45 days and it was to end by 23.8.1993. Inspite of it, defendnat-T.Revanna failed to perform his part of promise and on 25-08-1993 plaintiff-C. Sampangi had sent one more legal notice through RPAD. Thereafter, plaintiff C. Sampangi approached defendant-T. Revanna in person to conclude the contract, but defendant-T. Revanna failed to perform his part of contract nor delivered the vacant possession of suit schedule B property to the plaintiff. After expiry of the period mentioned, defendant is in illegal possession over the said property and plaintiff has sustained loss for a sum of Rs.800/- per month.
11
specific performance in O.S.5893/1996 against said C. Sampangi.
each attribute to other. There is a blame game exchange, lack of integrity by each of them on the other. Plaintiff-C Sampangi wants back possession of the property which he delivered to defendant-T. Revanna on the date of agreement i.e. on 4.3.1993 and attributes that defendant-T Revanna is not at all entitled for the relief of specific performance as he was not at all ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. T. Revanna is the defendant in the case filed by C. Sampangi and plaintiff in the case filed by him for specific performance and he wants to contend that he has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and it is the delay or deceit attributable to C. Sampangi and T.Revanna for himself
12
is entitled for the relief of specific performance and
also the remaining possession of the property.
9. With this controversy, learned trial judge
framed the following issues in each of the case.
Issues in OS No.5893/1996
defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property and executed an agreement to sell the property by the defendant on 4.3.1993 for total consideration of Rs.3,15,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.90,000/from the plaintiff?
Issues in OS No.11106/1994
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of property bearing No.544
13
{Old} New No.14, 1st cross, 7th Main, Gokul, II Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore -22?
10. What order/ decree?
14
common oral and documentary evidence has been led
by the parties as under:
Plaintiff: PW1 Rukmaniamal PW2 Shivakumar Ex.P1 Death certificate of C.Sampangi Ex.P2 Sale deed dated 4/12/92 executed in favour of one Thyagaraj by c.Sampangi Ex.P3 Mortgage deed dated 315/94 Ex.P4 Legal notice dated 25.8.93 Ex.P5 Reply notice dated 8.7.93 Ex.P6 Reply notice dated 4.2.94 Ex.P7 Legal notice dated 13.1.94 Ex.P8 Postal envelop Ex.P9 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P10 Endorsement 19.7.89 given by Bangalore City Corporation. Ex.P11 Power of attorney Ex.P12 Mortgage deed dated 31.5.94 Ex.P13 Mortgage deed dated 07.6.06 Ex.P14 Receipt Challan Ex.P15 Receipt Challan Ex.P16 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P17 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P18 Tax paid receipt dated 23.9.2000 Ex.P19 Wedding card of Mr.Shivakumar Ex.P20 Certified copy of sale deed dated15.10.58 in favour of Dhanamma Ex.P21 Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.9.58 in Favour of Dhanamma’s vendor Bylappa.
15
Ex.P22 Mortgage deed dated 1.4.97 Ex.P23 Tax paid receipt for the year 96-2001 dated 8.6.2000.
Ex.P24 Tax paid receipt for the year 94-1995 dated 13.5.94.
Ex.P25 Tax paid receipt for the year 96-1997 dated 13.5.96. Ex.P26 Death Certificate of Smt.Dhanamma Ex.P27 Death Certificate of Muniswamy.”
Defendant:
DW1 Revanna Dw2 Keshava Murthy DW3 Srinivasa DW4 B Gangadhara DW5 Eswara Rao
16
evidence produced by both the parties and other materials available on file, learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff C. Sampangi in O.S.No.11106/1994 and decreed the suit filed by T. Revanna in O.S.No.5893/1996. The operative portion is as under:
“In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.11106/94 is dismissed.
The suit filed by Sri.T.Revanna in O.S.5893/96 is decreed. The defendants in O.S.5893/96 are directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of Sri T Revanna within 4 months from the date of decree. In turn, the plaintiff Sri T Revanna shall deposit balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,63,646/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.from the date of the suit, on balance sale consideration within 3 months from the date of decree. In failure of defendants to execute sale deed, the plaintiff can get the sale deed through court in accordance with law.”
The same is challenged by C. Sampangi in these
appeals.
17
Shaikh appearing for defendant-T. Revanna would submit that Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly postulates that the sellar is bound to inform the pre state of affairs over the schedule property and he has to deliver all the documents. Nodoubt
Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act is as under:
“55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.— In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immoveable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:—
(1) The seller is bound—
(a) to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property 1[or in the seller’s title thereto] of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover;
(b) to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller’s possession or power;
18
(c) to answer to the best of his information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in respect to the property or the title thereto;
(d) on payment or tender of the amount due in respect of the price, to execute a proper conveyance of the property when the buyer tenders it to him for execution at a proper time and place;
(e) between the date of the contract of sale and the delivery of the property, to take as much care of the property and all documents of title relating thereto which are in his possession as an owner of ordinary prudence would take of such property and documents;
(f) to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature admits;
(g) to pay all public charges and rent accrued due in respect of the property up to the date of the sale, the interest on all encumbrances on such property due on such date, and, except where the property is sold subject to encumbrances, to discharge all encumbrances on the property then existing.
(2) The seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the interest which the seller
19
professes to transfer to the buyer subsists and that he has power to transfer the same: Provided that, where the sale is made by a person in a fiduciary character, he shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the seller has done no act whereby the property is encumbered or whereby he is hindered from transferring it. The benefit of the contract mentioned in this rule shall be annexed to, and shall go with, the interest of the transferee as such, and may be enforced by every person in whom that interest is for the whole or any part thereof from time to time vested.
(3) Where the whole of the purchase-money has been paid to the seller, he is also bound to deliver to the buyer all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller’s possession or power: Provided that, (a) where the seller retains any part of the property comprised in such documents, he is entitled to retain them all, and, (b) where the whole of such property is sold to different buyers, the buye of the lot of greatest value is entitled to such documents. But in case (a) the seller, and in case (b) the buyer, of the lot of greatest value, is bound, upon every reasonable request by the buyer, or by any of the other buyers, as the case may be, and at the cost of the person making the request, to produce the said documents and furnish such true copies thereof or extracts therefrom as he may require; and in the meantime, the seller, or the buyer of the lot of greatest value, as the case may be, shall keep the
20
said documents safe, uncancelled and undefaced, unless prevented from so doing by fire or other inevitable accident.
(4) The seller is entitled—
(a) to the rents and profits of the property till the ownership thereof passes to the buyer;
(b) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase-money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, 1[any transferee without consideration or any transferee with notice of the non-payment], for the amount of the purchase-money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, and for interest on such amount or part 1[from the date on which possession has been delivered].
(5) The buyer is bound—
(a) to disclose to the seller any fact as to the nature or extent of the seller’s interest in the property of which the buyer is aware, but of which he has reason to believe that the seller is not aware, and which materially increases the value of such interest;
(b) to pay or tender, at the time and place of completing the sale, the purchase-money to the seller or such person as he directs: provided that, where the property is sold free from encumbrances, the buyer may retain out of the purchase-money the amount of any encumbrances
21
on the property existing at the date of the sale, and shall pay the amount so retained to the persons entitled thereto;
(c) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, to bear any loss arising from the destruction, injury or decrease in value of the property not caused by the seller;
(d) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, as between himself and the seller, to pay all public charges and rent which may become payable in respect of the property, the principal moneys due on any encumbrances subject to which the property is sold, and the interest thereon afterwards accruing due.
(6) The buyer is entitled—
(a) where the ownership of the property has passed to him, to the benefit of any improvement in, or increase in value of, the property, and to the rents and profits thereof;
(b) unless he has improperly declined to accept delivery of the property, to a charge on the property, as against the seller and all persons claiming under him, 2[* * *] to the extent of the seller’s interest in the property, for the amount of any purchase-money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery and for interest on such amount; and, when he properly declines to accept
22
the delivery, also for the earnest (if any) and for the costs (if any) awarded to him of a suit to compel specific performance of the contract or to obtain a decree for its rescission. An omission to make such disclosures as are mentioned in this section, paragraph (1), clause (a), and paragraph (5), clause (a), is fraudulent.
Revanna that C. Sampangi was in possession of all the original documents and would give it earlier and at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. It was further submitted that plaintiff-C. Sampangi went to buy time, but did not execute the registered sale deed. Learned counsel further submit that meanwhile a notice came to be issued by C.Sampangi which is marked as Ex.P4 dated 25.8.1993 wherein T. Revanna was communicated that due to lapse on his part and failure to get the registered sale deed executed in his favour by paying the balance amount as agreed under the agreement, he was asked to deliver back the
23
possession of the property and in sofar as advance amount is concerned, it stands forfeited in favour of sellar Sampangi. On 26.7.1993 Ex.D4 a shara was written wherein an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by T. Revanna in addition to the advance amount of Rs.90,000/-. It was under the said subsequent agreement by one party, the time limit was extended for 45 days thereby T. Revanna to accommodate the remaining sale consideration and got executed the registered sale deed.
C.Sampangi in his suit contends that it is purely a default or breach of contract committed by C.Sampangi as he did not comply with the duties of a good sellar and he deserves a mandate by this court to execute the registered sale deed of the schedule property in favour of T. Revanna and also to deliver the remaining portion of the schedule property.
24
plaintiff/appellant- C.Sampangi would submit that he represents that he represents the matter of the said Sampangi, the sellar, who is plaintiff in OS No.11106/1994 and defendant in O.S No.5893/1996. Learned counsel would submit that the entire approach and conduct of the defendant T. Revanna would disclose as to how he defaulted in fulfilling the terms of the sale agreement he made a calculated efforts to create default on C Sampangi. Learned counsel would submit that firstly on the date of sale agreement consideration was agreed at Rs.3,15,000/and an advance amount of Rs.90,000/- was given and it is admitted. Learned counsel would further submit, besides not being ready to perform his part of contract which is one of the essential duties of a purchaser he fails to pay the remaining sale consideration in time and on the other hand, after the notice was issued, a
25
panchayat was arranged, where Sampangi had to agree for accommodating further 45 days. However, an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by Revanna to Sampangi thereby making the advance amount at Rs.1,15,000/-. Learned counsel would further submit that the defendant Revanna went on postponing and avoiding Sampangi only to evade the meeting as he was on the safer side of enjoying half portion of the schedule property and secondly, he wanted to drag on the proceedings. With this Sampangi files a suit claiming that agreement deserves to be cancelled and advance amount may be forfeited.
26
was paid, balance amount payable was Rs.2,25,000/and the time fixed for paying the balance amount was four months. However, it did not happen and there is a blame game between the purchaser and the seller, in that connection the purchaser claims that he had given Rs.25,000/- which is not considered and the time was extended by 45 days, accordingly. In furtherance of the same, before end of 45 days, a notice dated 06.07.1993-Ex.D5 was issued by Sampangi - seller and the main demand under the notice was defendant went on questioning the plaintiff to produce the documents.
27
after the death of Sampangi when his legal heirs came on record, the defendant claim that Sampangi’s legal heirs came with another person and stating that there is a loan of Rs.2,81,022/- on the schedule property that has to be cleared and in the negotiation the sale value was increased to Rs.4,75,000/-.
28
and also the contract duties being classified to purchaser which enables him to pay the balance sale consideration in time in accordance with in terms of agreement and the seller has to comply with the duties as mentioned in Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. Apart from that no disparity is involved, unless some sort of disparity, it is to be answered between the parties either in writing or oral. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that, sale agreement was for Rs.3,15,000/-.
29
Concept of ever ready and willing differs from one agreement to another and it is totally has to gathered by assessing the circumstances and evaluating the conduct of the parties. In this connection, the beginning sale consideration was Rs.3,15,000/- and subsequently, the purchaser was made known as there exists a loan that was borrowed by deceased - seller in two phases from the Co-operative Bank and sum of Rs.1,00,000/and 1,50,000/-totally Rs.2,50,000/- and after payment of interest and another aspect, the liability as on that date is Rs.2,21,534/. Though, an agreement was entered into by purchaser and seller, by virtue of the mortgage of the property, it becomes an encumbrance property unless loan is cleared. If loan were to be cleared, it comes to Rs.90,000/- plus Rs.2,21,534/-. This is almost sale price. It is in this connection, the defendant has in all fairness admitted the sale
30
consideration as it accepted to be Rs.4,75,000/-. Thus, sale consideration that was Rs.3,15,000/- in the beginning being no change of circumstances, shooted up to Rs.4,75,000/- which also defendant promptly accepted. In this connection, bank manager has stated that Revanna has paid Rs.2,21,534. Thus, the admitted sale consideration paid by purchaser would be Rs.90,000/- + 2,21,534 = Rs.3,11,534/-. Hence, the balance would be payable is Rs.1,63,466/- and he is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,63,466/- by the trial court and complying all these dues, full payment of Rs.2,21,534/- to the bank by Sri.Revanna - the defendant is the fair example of ready and willingness.
31
accepted the said liability of Rs.2,21,534/- as a whole and in fact, he has cleared it. In the over all circumstances of the case,
I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity or capriciousness in the judgment passed by the court below. There was neither legal injury nor damage to plaintiff-Sampangi or his legal heirs. On the other hand, the defendant – purchaser suffered unjustifiably in the hands of seller. The judgment of the court below deserves to be confirmed and appeals are liable to be dismissed or devoid of merit. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
JUDGE
tsn*/HJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the purchaser was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to execute the sale deed.
Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seller.
Whether the judgment below which decreed specific performance was perversely capable of challenge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RUKMANIYAMMA
S.SHIVAKUMAR
SARAVANA
S.PRAMILA
S.VASANTHI
S.MALLIKA
N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
