Appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance challenging sale agreement alleged to be fraudulent due to bonded labour and blank signature exploitation. High Court held plaintiffs failed to prove bonded labour plea; appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed.
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 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
R.S.A. No.1726 OF 2011 (SP)
BETWEEN:
All are residents of Chikkanayakanahalli, Saligrama Hobli, K.R.Nagar Tq.K.R.Nagar-571 602.
…Appellants (By Sri.L.S.Chikkanagoudar, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Ramakrishnegowda, Son of Sri.Subbegowda, Aged about 56 years, Resident of Chikkanayakanahalli, Saligrama Hobli K.R.Nagar Taluk, K.R.Nagar- 571 602.
…Respondent (By Sri.Syed Akbar for Sri.Mahantesh S.Hosmath, Advocate)
2
This R.S.A. is filed under section 100 of CPC., against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2010 passed in R.A.No.410/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R.Nagar, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.9.2005 passed in O.S.NO.64/2003 on the File of the Civil Judge (J.DN) & JMFC., K.R.Nagar and etc.
This appeal coming on for Admission this Day, the Court through Video Conference at Bengaluru, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in RA.No.410/2007 dated 2.12.2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., K.R.Nagar, came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.64/2003 dated 26.9.2005 passed on the file of Civil Judge (J.DN) & JMFC., K.R.Nagar. Thus, the defendant has come in appeal before this Court under Section 100 against the concurrent finding.
3
1. Whether the plea of fraud and bonded labour was the ground for dismissal of the suit for specific performance?
2. Whether the sale agreement dated 25.02.2000 vitiated by virtue of bonded labour alleged to have been practiced by the plaintiff?
3. Whether courts below erred in relying on the sale agreement dated 25.2.2000 stated to have been resulted from fraud and bonded labour?
“The suit is for specific performance of sale agreement. The defendants on 25.2.2000 for their family necessity agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/and received Rs.40,000/- as advance and executed a sale agreement in favour of plaintiff. The defendants agreed to
4
execute the sale deed within three years by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.5000/-. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 22.1.2003 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The notice was served on second defendant and it was not served on defendants 1 and 3. the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff sought the above relief against the defendants.
The defendants have appeared through counsel and filed their written statement by denying the case of the plaintiff and further contended that they belong to backward class and third defendant was working in the house of plaintiff as bonded labour. At that time, the plaintiff obtained the signature of defendants on blank papers and thereafter got concocted the alleged agreement of sale to have wrongful gain. The said document is fraudulent one and no consideration has been passed there under. In fact, the defendants have not executed any agreement of sale in respect of suit property. The suit is barred by limitation. The alleged agreement of sale is insufficiently stamped and it is not enforceable. The plaintiff is a money lender and he is doing money lending business without license. Therefore, defendants sought for dismissal of suit with exemplary cost. ”
5
5. Based on the pleadings and contentions of the
parties, the Trial Judge framed the following five issues,
1. Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants entered into an agreement dated 25.2.2000 with him, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.45,000/- and received Rs.40,000/as advance towards the sale consideration?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that he was ready and willing to perform him part of contract?
3. Does the defendants prove that the present suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
following oral and documentary evidence by both the parties:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Mr.Ramakrishnegowda P.W.2 : Mr.Yallakigowda P.W.3 : Krishnegowda Ex.P1 : Affidavit of PW.1 Ex.P2 : Sale Agreement Ex.P2 (a) : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P3 : RTC, Extract
6
Ex.P4 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P5 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P6&7 : Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P8 : Postal acknowledgment
FOR DEFENDANT:
| D.W.1. | : | Mr.Ramaiah |
|---|---|---|
| Ex.D1 | : | Affidavit of DW.1 |
| Ex.D1(a) | ||
| & (b) | : | Signature of DW1. |
| Ex.D2 | : | Sale agreement dated |
| Ex.D3 | : | Lagna Kundali Pathrike |
| Ex.D4 | : | Wedding Card |
| Ex.D5 | : | RTC, Extract |
7
is a money lender. It is also contended by the defendant that the suit is barred by the limitation. The plaintiff before trial court has examined himself as P.W.1. No significant contradiction is there to establish whether the special plea of bonded labour by the defendants and obtaining their signature on blank papers was considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
8
and there is no substance in the contentions taken by the defendants against the judgment and decree challenged under the appeal nor there is any other substantial question of law for adjudication. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. There are no circumstances to call for interference in the judgment passed either by the Appellate Court or the Trial Court and they deserve to be confirmed.
O R D E R
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and the judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
akv/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plea of fraud and bonded labour was the ground for dismissal of the suit for specific performance?
Whether the sale agreement dated 25.02.2000 was vitiated by virtue of alleged bonded labour practiced by the plaintiff?
Whether courts below erred in relying on the sale agreement stated to have been resulted from fraud and bonded labour?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Ramaiah
Smt. Shanthamma
Sri. Madaiah
Sri. Ramakrishnegowda
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
