The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by a former defendant (who was a minor at the time of the agreement) against a decree for specific performance. The court held that the defendants were in default, the minority claim lacked evidence, and the pendency of a partition suit did not bar the relief.
The appeal was dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1261 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARPITHA D/O SRI. CHANNIGARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT KUGONAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT KUGONAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. C.M. KUMAR RAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
RFA 1261/2022
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KUGONAHALLI VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.N. UMESH, C/R1)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.No.518/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
RFA 1261/2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the fifth defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 29, 2021, in O.S.No.518/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura.
suit for specific performance of the contract, contending
that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are owners of the suit property bearing Sy.No.62/2 (new number 61/2) measuring 1 acre 35 guntas of Kugonahall in Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. They had agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.38,43,750/- and executed an agreement of sale dated December 20, 2012, in favour of plaintiff and received Rs.10 Lakhs as advance sale consideration simultaneously with the execution of agreement. As per the term of the agreement
RFA 1261/2022
defendants had to get necessary revenue records and survey sketch before execution of the sale deed. The survey number of the suit property was renumbered from 62/2 to 61/2. To correct the same, defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.101/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura for the relief of declaration and rectification of revenue records. The said suit was decreed. In terms of the decree, revenue records were mutated.
5
RFA 1261/2022
filed suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement.
6
RFA 1261/2022
put to great loss and hardship. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
written statement before the Trial Court on similar lines of defendants No.1 to 4.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants had executed agreement of sale of suit property in her favour on 20-12-2012 for valuable consideration?
2. Whether the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have committed the breach of agreement of sale?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance as prayed for?
5. Whether defendants No.1 to 5 prove that the market value of suit property is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore only) and as such the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and correct?
6. Whether defendants No.1 to 5 prove that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in view of pendency of O.S.No.228/2017 before this Court?
7
RFA 1261/2022
7. Whether defendants No.1 to 5 prove that suit document is concocted and created by the plaintiff?
8. What decree or order? "
witnesses as PWs-1 to 4 and got marked eleven documents as per Exs.P1 to P11 and closed her evidence. Defendants have not let in either oral or documentary evidence.
learned Trial Judge answered Issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and Issues No.5 to 7 in the negative and decreed the suit as prayed, by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal.
Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
8
RFA 1261/2022
and received earnest money of Rs.10 Lakhs. According to the plaintiff, fifth defendant and Respondents No.2 to 5 had to get corrected survey number and update the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that to rectify the survey number, second defendant filed suit O.S.No.101/2014 and got the revenue records corrected. Thus, till the disposal of the said suit, defendants could not execute the sale deed.
9
RFA 1261/2022
property as on the date of suit was more than Rupees One Crore and if they are directed to execute Sale Deed, they will suffer loss. The said contention is not sustainable. The material on record and the findings of Trial Court reveal that due to default of defendants, Sale Deed could not be concluded. Therefore, their present stand that they would be put to hardship is untenable and cannot be accepted.
have set up defendant No.5 to file a suit for partition, though she was a party to the agreement of sale. On that count, defendants contended that suit was not maintainable, in view of pendency of O.S.No.2281 of 2017. According to the learned Advocate for appellant, defendant No.5 had filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.228/2017 and it was dismissed for default. She claims to have filed a miscellaneous case and it is pending. However, no material is produced in this regard. Further, mere pendency of suit for partition
10
RFA 1261/2022
cannot be a ground to dismiss the suit for specific performance of the contract.
11
RFA 1261/2022
the instance of plaintiff, age of the defendants were mentioned in the agreement of sale. If defendant No.5 was minor, then there was no impediment for the defendants No.1 to 4 to mention the said fact in Ex.P1. No explanation is forthcoming as to why defendants No.1 to 4 did not mention the correct age of defendant No.5, in Ex.P1. Therefore, in our view, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, such contention was taken by defendants in their written statement.
12
RFA 1261/2022
appellant-defendant No.5 that for illegal or immoral purpose, defendants No.1 to 4 executed an agreement of sale, to sell the property during her minority. Under
such circumstances, even if it is assumed that defendant No.5 was minor at the time of agreement, it did not affect the rights of kartha of the family in any
manner, to sell joint family property on behalf of minor.
Due to default on the part of the defendants, sale transaction was not concluded for about ten years. Therefore, due to inflation, the land value might be escalated. They have no right to refuse to execute the sale deed on the ground that they would suffer loss. Admittedly, they have received advance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs about ten years back and enjoyed the same. If the relief of specific performance were to be rejected by the Trial Court, the plaintiff would have been put to irreparable loss. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned Trial Judge has rightly
13
RFA 1261/2022
granted the relief of specific performance after
considering the material on record.
devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed .
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
DH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the decree for specific performance of a contract is maintainable given the alleged default of the defendant-appellant.
Whether the pendency of a partition suit filed by a minor defendant affects the maintainability of the suit for specific performance.
Whether the alleged minority of a joint family member can bar the sale of joint family property for legal necessity and family benefit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Arpitha D/o Sri. Channigarayappa
Smt. Veena G W/o T.K. Nataraju
Sri Channigarayappa S/o Late MunishamanNA
Smt. Narasamma W/o Sri Channigarayappa
Sri Anil Kumar S/o Sri Channigarayappa
Smt.K.C.Supriya D/o Sri Channigarayappa
P.S.DINESH KUMAR
UMESH M ADIGA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
