Allowed

Sri Krishna v. Sri H B Rudrappa

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2021RFA/212/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Trial Court's judgment that dismissed the suit for specific performance. The Court found the Trial Court's reasoning inconsistent and non-application of mind on framed issues. The matter was remanded for re-consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to Trial Court for re-consideration with liberty to adduce fresh/additional evidence; status-quo maintained.

Sri Krishna Vs Sri H B Rudrappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

¶7

R.F.A.No.212/2018

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI KRISHNA

¶10

S/O SRI VENKATARAMAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, No.192

¶11

BESTHARA HOBLI, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064.

¶12

SRI M.V.MADHU SUDHAN S/O CHINNAVENKATARAMAPPA AGED 49 YEARS R/AT H.NO.6/1054 RAILWAY STATION ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.

¶13

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶14

2[a] SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O LATE M.V.MADHUSUDHAN AGED 43 YEARS

¶15

2[b] SINDHU.M D/O LATE M.V.MADHUSUDHAN AGED 21 YEARS

¶16

2[c] SUSHMA

¶17

D/O LATE M.V.MADHUSUDHAN AGED 11 YEARS

¶18

¶19

2[d] CHAITANYA.M S/O LATE M.V.MADHUSUDHAN AGED 11 YEARS

¶20

APPELLANT Nos.2[c] AND 2[d] ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN – MOTHER SMT.RAJESHWARI

¶21

CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.07.2021.

¶22

ALL ARE R/AT No.6/1054 RAILWAY STATION ROAD YELAHANKA, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADV.)

¶24

AND :

¶25

SRI H.B.RUDRAPPA S/O LATE BORAIAH AGED 56 YEARS

¶26

SMT.M.S.LAKSHMI W/O H.B.RUDRAPPA AGED 60 YEARS

¶27

H.R.RASHMI W/O H.B.RUDRAPPA & M.S.LAKSHMI AGED 28 YEARS

¶28

SRI H.R.KARTHIK S/O H.B.RUDRAPPA & M.S.LAKSHMI AGED 28 YEARS

¶29

ALL ARE R/AT HANAKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571404. …RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI B.MANJUNATH, ADV.)

¶31

THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.101/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶32

¶33

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.101/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mandya [‘Trial Court’ for short].

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their status before the Trial Court.

¶37

The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreements dated 17.12.2014 and19.02.2015 directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere or encroach upon the plaintiffs’ north-eastern side of the suit schedule property.

¶38

¶39

The description of the subject property is all that piece and parcel of the agricultural land Sy.No.610/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Hanakere Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District and Sy.No.611 measuring 0.30 guntas situated at Hankere Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District, adjacent lands both the Sy.Nos.610/2 and 611 totaling measure 2 acres 16 guntas with a common boundary and admits located 0.30 guntas on the northeastern portion bounded by:

¶40

East by:	Hanakere-Channanke Gowdana Do	ddi
	Road
West by:	Water cannel and remaining land	of
	Rudrappa
North by:	Property of M.Krishna land	in
	Sy.No.610/1
South by:	Remaining land of H.B.Rudrappa.

¶41

- 5 -

¶42

The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs being agriculturists are also doing allied business at Mandya, Mysore and other places. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.12.2014 to purchase 0.30 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.610/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and Sy.No.611 situated at Hanagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk, and it is registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Mandya as document No.MDY-1-109742-2014-15, Book1, CD No.MDYD171. It was further submitted that the sale consideration fixed was Rs.3,10,000/-. The plaintiffs issued two cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each, i.e., cheque No.446100 dated 17.12.2014 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Yalahanka branch and cheque No.620997 dated 17.12.2014 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Yalahanka Branch, Bengaluru. An amount of Rs.75,000/- by cash was paid in the presence of the Sub-registrar at the time of execution of the agreement

¶43

¶44

for sale. Thus, it was contended that in all, Rs.2,75,000/- was paid to the defendants against the total consideration of Rs.3,10,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It was further contended that the defendants on execution of the agreement dated 17.12.2014 had undertaken immediately for implementation of certain terms and conditions. As per clause 4 of the agreement of sale, they have agreed amongst other things, to pay all the outstanding revenue, obtain necessary permission for sale of the schedule property updating the Pahani, Khatha, Mutation, RTC, Atlas copy, conversion to non agriculture, encumbrance etc.,

¶45

It was further submitted that the plaintiffs

¶46

and defendants entered into supplemental/second agreement dated 19.02.2015 in terms of which, the defendants had handed over the possession of the suit

¶47

- 7 -

¶48

property to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have been in lawful and legal possession of the suit property since the date of execution of supplemental agreement and are maintaining the suit property.

¶49

It was contended that, the defendants after

¶50

execution of first agreement approached the plaintiffs

¶51

within two months for an additional advance of Rs.12,25,000/- in addition to Rs.2,75,000/- received by the defendants on the date of registration of first agreement. Accordingly, the plaintiffs paid the defendants a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- vide cheque No.446102 dated 19.02.2015 drawn on SBM, Yalahanka, Bengaluru, cheque No.271836 dated 19.02.2015 drawn on Bharath Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yelahanka New Town for Rs.1,00,000/- each and cash of Rs.10,25,000/- was paid on the same day in the presence of witnesses and notary at Mandya. The defendants had acknowledged the receipt of additional

¶52

¶53

advance of Rs.12,25,000/totally amounting to

¶54

Rs.15,00,000/- as against Rs.16,00,000/- towards the sale consideration re-determined. In clause 5 of the supplemental agreement dated 19.02.2015, it was mentioned that Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards lease of south-western portion of Sy.No.611 and 610/2, an area of 1 acre 26 guntas out of 2 acre 16 guntas i.e., south-western portion of schedule property and the said amount was paid through cheque No.446101 dated 17.12.2014 drawn on SBM, Yalahanka, being lease rental of the south-western portion of the suit schedule property for a period of 5 years and the lease deed was also executed on 17.12.2015. The plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and has deposited the same in the Court to show their bonafides by way of Demand Draft in favour of defendants. The difference payable of Rs.1,00,000/- was adjusted towards lease rental of Rs.1,50,000/- hence,

¶55

¶56

Rs.1,00,000/remains to be paid as balance consideration for sale of 0.30 guntas of schedule land. However, the defendants despite receiving the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- as against Rs.16,00,000/- towards the sale consideration amount, have illegally terminated the first agreement but not the second agreement. The defendants in their legal notice even offered to refund Rs.2,75,000/- to the plaintiffs and also threatened of filing suit against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs called upon the defendants during the second week of July 2015 and also third week of October to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and to execute the sale deed but in vain. It was further submitted that the revenue entries of the lands were all mutated in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have paid tax for the year 2015-16. On these set of facts and grounds, the plaintiffs instituted the suit.

¶57

- 10 -

¶58

8. Pursuant to the summons issued, defendant

¶59

Nos.1 to 4 had appeared before the Court and filed written statement denying the plaint averments inter alia contending that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed the sale agreement for security of loan amount but not for sale of the suit schedule property by receiving consideration amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. The defendants had issued the notice to the plaintiffs to receive loan amount with interest but the plaintiffs have given counter notices/reply albeit no second loan was given pertaining to the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had created second agreement to make unlawful gain, the market value of the suit schedule property is very high. At the time of executing the lease deed in favour of the plaintiffs they have taken signature of the defendants on blank stamp paper and the plaintiffs have created the second supplement document before the notary. Totally denying the payment of Rs.10,25,000/- paid by cash as asserted by

¶60

11 -

¶61

the plaintiffs, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have purchased the property of defendant No.1’s own brother Shivappa. At the time of executing the sale deed the wrong boundary has been mentioned to knock off the suit schedule property. The payment of Rs.10,25,000/- said to have been made by the plaintiffs to the defendants and the execution of the second document were totally denied. It was further contended that the defendants had filed suit against the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction relating to the suit schedule property in O.S.No.79/2016 which is pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya wherein the Hon’ble Court had issued summons to the plaintiffs. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.

¶62

On considering the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court had formulated the issues as under:

¶63

12 -

¶64

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants and they had entered into agreement in writing on 17.12.2014 and 19.02.2015 and registered for sale of suit schedule property for Rs.3,10,000/-?

¶65

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they had tendered Rs.2,75,000/- and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

¶66

3. Whether the defendants prove that they had executed the agreement as security for the loan of Rs.2,75,000/- received by them?

¶67

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of the contract?

¶68

5. What order or decree?

¶69

The plaintiff No.1 was examined as pw1 and

¶70

three witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW4. Ex.P1 to

¶71

P13 were marked. Defendant No.1 himself got examined as DW1 but no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

¶72

13 -

¶73

11. On appreciation of oral and documentary

¶74

evidence, the Trial Court answered the issue Nos.1 to 4 in negative whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

¶75

12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and

¶76

decree, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

¶77

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the Trial Court grossly erred in disbelieving the agreement itself [Ex.P1] which is a registered document. Consideration was passed in favour of the defendants as recited under the said agreement. The evidence let in by the plaintiffs stands steadfast; the witnesses and the scribe to the agreement have been examined. Brushing aside the said vital evidence, the Trial Court denied the relief of specific performance merely based on assumptions and surmises. It was further argued that the Trial Court has not assigned valid reasons for dismissing the suit. Learned counsel argued that all the

¶78

- 14 -

¶79

issues framed by the Trial Court, more particularly issue Nos.1 and 3 are answered in the Negative which itself establishes non-application of mind by the Trial Court. In answering the issues No.1 and 3 in negative, there is contradiction. It was submitted that on this ground alone, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.

¶80

14. Learned counsel for the defendants submits

¶81

that the Trial Court committed a palpable error in answering issue No.3 in negative. The Trial Court having answered the issue No.1 in negative ought to have answered issue No.3 in affirmative. Hence, submitted that the matter requires re-consideration on this issue.

¶82

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records.

¶83

- 15 -

¶84

The points that arise for our consideration

¶85

are:

¶86

Whether the Trial Court was justified in answering both the issue Nos.1 and 3 in the Negative?

¶87

Whether the impugned judgment and decree is justifiable?

¶88

Re. Point No.1:

¶89

As aforesaid, the Trial Court has framed five

¶90

issues for consideration; issue Nos.1 and 3 are as under:

¶91

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants and they had entered into agreement in writing on 17.12.2014 and 19.02.2015 and registered for sale of suit schedule property for Rs.3,10,000/-?

¶92

3. Whether the defendants prove that they had executed the agreement as security

¶93

16 -

¶94

for the loan of Rs.2,75,000/- received

¶95

by them?”

¶96

Registered sale agreement dated 17.12.2014

¶97

was executed by the parties relating to the suit property agreeing for sale consideration of Rs.3,10,000/-. Under the said agreement, Rs.2,75,000/- is said to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants as against the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,10,000/- agreeing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed. Plaintiffs contended that a supplemental agreement [Ex.P3] dated 19.02.2015 was executed by the parties under which another sum of Rs.12,25,000/- is said to have been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants relating to the same suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiffs assert that they have paid the earnest money of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendants. As per Ex.P1, earnest money amount was paid through two cheques of

¶98

- 17 -

¶99

Rs.1,00,000/- each and Rs.75,000/-by cash. As per Ex.P3, amount is said to have been paid through two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each and Rs.10,25,000/- by way of cash.

¶100

However, the defendants contend that it was a loan transaction and they had executed the agreements as security for the loan received by them. The Trial Court while considering these aspects has held that Ex.P3 is not registered document, hence cannot be given any credence. Accordingly dismissed the entire suit.

¶101

This reasoning of the Trial Court is wholly untenable. Even the admitted amount said to have been paid through cheques is not ordered to be refunded to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the Trial Court has held that both the parties have failed to prove their case which is hard to approve. As aforesaid, answering issue Nos.1 and 3 both in the negative would indicate non-

¶102

18 -

¶103

application of mind by the Trial Court since the same is inconsistent. Hence, on this ground alone, the finding of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

¶104

Re.Point No.2:

¶105

It is ex facie apparent that the Trial Court has neither accepted the stance of the plaintiffs nor of the defendants and ultimately dismissed the suit disbelieving Ex.P3. If so, Ex.P1 i.e., the registered sale agreement also has not been properly appreciated. Hence, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the Trial Court for re-consideration, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶106

For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the

¶107

following:

¶108

ORDER

¶109

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶110

19 -

¶111

ii] Impugned judgment and decree dated 14.9.2017 passed in O.S.No.101/2015 by

¶112

the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mandya, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for re-consideration.

¶113

iii] All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The parties are at liberty to adduce fresh/additional evidence.

¶114

iv] Since the parties are represented by their learned counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.09.2021 without waiting for notice and shall take further orders. The Trial Court shall dispose of the matter in an expedite manner.

¶115

v] The parties shall maintain status-quo relating to the suit properties till the disposal of the suit before the Trial Court.

¶116

20 -

¶117

vi] All the pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.

¶118

vii] In view of the remand of the matter to the Trial Court, the plaintiffs are entitled for refund of the Court fee in terms of the provisions of The Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

¶119

Sd/JUDGE

¶120

Sd/JUDGE

¶121

Dvr:/NC.

Sri Krishna v. Sri H B Rudrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna v. Sri H B Rudrappa

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

M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Lorry Vs Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Poornima Vs the Managing Director Ksrtc

Smt. Mahadevi Tippanna Kovi Vs Mrs. Meenakshi S Shettigar

Sri M Ravikumar Vs Smt N M Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi

Mr N Chandrashekhar Vs M/S Abhinav Projects

M/S Sumadhura Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. N Veena