Dismissed

Sri. Gangarevanna v. Sri. Revanasiddappa

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022RSA/799/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals challenging specific performance decree and will findings were dismissed. Court upheld the Appellate Court's finding that the sale agreement was genuine, noting the Trial Court erred in finding fraud without specific pleading. Legatee's challenge failed as specific performance precludes Will inquiry over the same property.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal dismissed. Cross second appeal dismissed on the ground that specific performance decree precludes inquiry into the Will for the same properties.

Sri. Gangarevanna Vs Sri. Revanasiddappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.799 OF 2016 (SP) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.800 OF 2016 (SP)

¶7

IN RSA NO.799/2016:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. GANGAREVANNA, SON OF HONNASIDDAIAH, DEAD BY LRS.

¶10

1(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA,

¶11

W/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶12

1(b) SMT.SHASHIKALA, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶13

1(c) SMT.UMADEVI, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶14

1(d) SMT.RENUKAMMA, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 1(e) SRI SIDDRAJU,

¶15

¶16

S/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶17

APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(e) ARE ALL RESIDING AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶18

... APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI P.D.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE, APPLNT 1 (A-E))

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶22

SMT SHANKARAMMA, W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN NO 562123.

¶23

RENUKAIAH S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMAGNALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRIC.T PIN NO 562123.

¶24

HONNARAJAIAH, S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMAGNALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶25

¶26

PIN NO 562123.

¶27

SMT RENUKAMMA D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, W/O H.K.RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ARTHI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN NO 56S2159.

¶28

SMT VANAJAKSHAMMA D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, W/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, KULAVANAHALLI POST, THYMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND ALSO R1, 2, 4 AND 5)

¶31

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.130/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.90/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), JMFC., NELAMANGALA.

¶32

IN RSA NO.800/2016:

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SRI. GANGAREVANNA, SON OF HONNASIDDAIAH,

¶35

¶36

DEAD BY LRS.

¶37

1(a) SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶38

1(b) SMT.SHASHIKALA, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶39

1(c) SMT.UMADEVI, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶40

1(d) SMT.RENUKAMMA, D/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, W/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶41

1(e) SRI SIDDRAJU, S/O LATE GANGAREVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶42

APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(e) ARE ALL RESIDING AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶43

... APPELLANTS

¶44

(BY SRI P.D.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR, A1 (A-E))

¶45

AND:

¶46

SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶47

1(a) SMT SHANKARAMMA, W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶48

¶49

R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN NO 562123.

¶50

1(b) RENUKAIAH

¶51

S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMAGNALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN NO 562123.

¶52

1(c) HONNARAJAIAH, S/O LATE REVANNASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMAGNALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. PIN NO 562123.

¶53

1(d) SMT RENUKAMMA D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, W/O H.K.RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ARTHI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN NO 562159.

¶54

1 (e) SMT VANAJAKSHAMMA D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, W/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, KULAVANAHALLI POST,

¶55

¶56

THYMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN - 562123.

¶57

MUNICHANNAIAH, S/O SIDDLINGAIAH (DECEASED)

¶58

REVAMMA, W/O MUNICHANNAIAH,

¶59

(DECEASED). ...RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(C) AND ALSO R1 (A,B,D AND E)

¶61

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.130/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.90/1989 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), JMFC., NELAMANGALA.

¶62

THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶63

JUDGMENT

¶64

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by defendant

¶65

No.3 questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No. 108/2009.

¶66

¶67

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶68

to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶69

Plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.90/1989 on the basis of agreement dated 17.05.1982. The plaintiffs contended that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit lands and he has offered to sell the same in favour of plaintiffs. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed an agreement on 17.05.1982 for a sale consideration of 15,000/- and received part sale consideration of 5,000/- on the date of execution of suit agreement. Plaintiffs further stated that it was agreed that balance sale consideration would be paid at the time of registration. It is specific case of plaintiffs that defendant Nos.1 and 2 delivered possession of suit land to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further pleaded that defendant No.1 received a further sum of `5,160/- on 15.06.1983 and accordingly, executed a stamp receipt acknowledging the second payment. It is further pleaded that defendant No.1 agreed to execute registered sale deed after obtaining necessary permission from the government. The grievance

¶70

¶71

of plaintiffs is that inspite of repeated requests defendant Nos.1 and 2 were not inclined to execute the sale deed in their favour. It is also stated that defendants submitted an application on 27.06.1983 to the jurisdictional Tahasildar seeking permission to transfer the schedule land. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants have agreed to convey all the seven items of land and having entered into an agreement and further having received substantial sale consideration, refused to perform their part of contract and therefore, the present suit.

¶72

On receipt of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants denied the very execution of suit agreement. It was specifically pleaded that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not received any sale consideration from the plaintiffs. Specific stand was taken in the written statement to the effect that defendants are aged and blind and plaintiffRevannasiddappa being nephew of defendant No.1 was assisting the defendants.

¶73

¶74

While defendant Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the suit transaction, defendant No.3 who claimed to be a legatee, during the lifetime of defendant Nos.1 and 2 came on record as defendant No.3 and he sought amendment of written statement. By way of amendment, it is defendant No.3 who has set up the additional defence. Defendant No.3 has raised an additional plea indicating that plaintiffs were assisting the defendant No.1 in writ petition pending before this Court. Defendant No.3 alleged that plaintiff had engaged an advocate for defendant No.1 and had obtained thumb impressions of defendants on several occasions and these signatures were secured on blank papers which were intended to prosecute the writ petition before this Court. Therefore, defendant No.3 alleged that the suit agreement is a concocted document and plaintiffs have taken undue advantage by using these blank papers to prepare the suit agreement and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶75

Plaintiffs, to substantiate their claim, examined original plaintiff-Revannasiddappa as P.W.1, two independent witnesses to the suit agreement as P.Ws.2

¶76

¶77

and 3 and P.W.4 who is the scribe of suit agreement vide Ex.P.1 and also examined Ex.P.5 who is a witness to the receipt executed by defendant No.1 acknowledging the subsequent payment of `5,160/-. Plaintiffs have also adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to 3.

¶78

Defendants, to counter the claim of plaintiffs, examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and two independent witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D.1 to 90.

¶79

The Trial Court having independently assessed oral and documentary evidence, answered additional issue No.1 in the affirmative and consequently, held that the suit agreement vide Ex.P.1 is a concocted document and dismissed the suit.

¶80

The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.108/2009, while defendant No.3 preferred a cross appeal in R.A.No.130/2009, feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Court below on additional issue

¶81

¶82

No.2 relating to the Will executed by defendant No.1. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority, has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence. On examination of material placed on record, the Appellate Court has meticulously adverted to the evidence of two witnesses to the suit agreement and also the evidence of scribe. The Appellate Court has also taken pain to assess the evidence of D.W.2 who is also one of the witness to the suit agreement, who has deposed against the plaintiffs by stating that suit agreement is a fraudulent document. The Appellate Court, while accepting the evidence of two witnesses and scribe, was not inclined to take into consideration the evidence of D.W.2. The Appellate Court has discarded the evidence of D.W.2, as plaintiffs have succeeded in eliciting in cross examination of D.W.2 that some criminal cases are pending between plaintiffs and D.W.2 and therefore, the Appellate Court was of the view that he is a interested witness.

¶83

The Appellate Court has also dealt with the finding of the Trial Court on additional issue No.1. While examining

¶84

¶85

the evidence on record relating to fraud, the Appellate Court has come to conclusion that Trial Court has misread the evidence relating to fraud. The relevant portion on basis of which the Trial Court has come to conclusion on the admissions made by plaintiffs to the effect that they were secured signatures were secured on blank papers ,is reproduced by Appellate Court at paragraph No.26. The Appellate Court having revisited this portion of the evidence, was of the view that Trial Court has not read the entire sentence. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation, was of the view that plaintiffs have denied the suggestion that they have secured signatures on the blank papers.

¶86

The Appellate Court having meticulously examined

¶87

the evidence of P.W.1, the evidence of witnesses who were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and the evidence of scribe who was examined as P.W.4, has come to conclusion that plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the due execution of suit agreement and also payment made under the agreement and subsequent payment made under Ex.P.2. The defence set up by defendant No.3 that suit agreement

¶88

¶89

is secured by fraudulent means, was not accepted by the Appellate Court.

¶90

On re-assessing oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court was of the view that judgment and decree of the Trial Court suffer from perversity and therefore, warrants interference. Consequently, appeal was allowed and suit was decreed granting larger relief of specific performance of contract.

¶91

The divergent findings is questioned by defendant No.3 who claims to be the legatee under defendant No.1. I have extensively heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 and learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. This matter was heard on 18.08.2022 and it was adjourned to enable the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs to address his further arguments. Meanwhile, this Court has also secured the Trial Court records telephonically. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court.

¶92

¶93

I have also examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court on additional issue No.1.

¶94

Before I advert to the ground urged in the second appeal, it is useful for this Court to cull out the original written statement tendered by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Paragraph No.3(a) reads as under.

¶95

"These defendants have not executed the agreement of sale dated 17.05.1982. These defendants further deny that they have agreed to sell the land for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and these defendants further deny that they have received any amount much less a sum of Rs.5,000/- as part of the consideration as alleged in this paragraph. These defendants deny that they have agreed to sell the land much less to the plaintiff. These defendants are cultivating the lands personally and are in enjoyment of the same. Taking advantage of the defendants' innocence the plaintiff backed up with his followes has filed the above suit by a concocted document. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of these allegations."

¶96

Pleadings culled out supra, indicates defendant No.1 who is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property has outrightly denied the very transaction vide Ex.P.1. Defendant No.1 claimed that plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance based on a concocted document.

¶97

¶98

Defendant No.3, who subsequently gets himself impleaded, strangely seeks amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, he seeks incorporation of additional paragraph at paragraph No.3(c). He also assert right on the basis of will executed by defendant No.1. It would be useful for this Court to cull out paragraph No.3(c) of the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 which is sought to be incorporated at the instance of defendant No.3/legatee. The same reads as under;

¶99

"That the defendants are aged and are blind. That the plaintiff being the brother's son of the first defendant was assisting the defendants in a case bearing No.LRF BRS 9/75-76 filed by one Hanumaiah against the first defendant and pending before the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala. As against the order of the Land Tribunal the first defendant had to prefer a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.19876/81. The plaintiff who had engaged the Advocate for this defendant prevailed upon the defendants and promised them that the writ would have to be filed by both the defendants and was taking their thumb impressions, signatures several time for the said purpose. These defendants had full trust and confidence in the plaintiff and never doubted his bonafides. The defendants now suspect that the plaintiff might have got up the alleged documents with an eye on the lands which were worth more than Rs.80,000/- at the relevant period and for the simple reason that the defendants have no issues. That the plaintiff might have misused the trust and confidence that these defendants had reposed in him, and has played fraud on the defendants."

¶100

¶101

In paragraph No.3(c), defendant No.3 has admitted in unequivocal terms that the signature of defendant No.1 and LTM of defendant No.2 were secured by the plaintiffs on blank papers. It is trite law that if executants admitted their signatures on the documents, then the entire burden would shift on the executants to prove that signatures were secured on the blank papers and therefore, the contents are found to be fraudulent and without the consent of executants. If the execution is admitted, then the entire burden would be on the defendants.

¶102

If the finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issue No.1 is examined in the context of defence set up by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, then this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has not at all correctly assessed the evidence on record while answering the additional issue No.1 in the affirmative. Mere bald allegations in pleadings alleging fraud would not suffice. Whenever a party pleads fraud, then each and very allegation should be brought in the pleadings. The party

¶103

¶104

alleging fraud has set out the details. Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC requires that every pleadings alleging fraud shall contain the statement in the condensed form and Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC requires that in all cases where party pleads fraud, need to be specifically pleaded. Unless there exists corresponding plea and an issue framed thereon, it is impermissible to lead evidence thereon. It is trite law that fraud is an objective fact and it is necessary to state the facts and materials constituting the same. Therefore, general allegations of fraud without specific pleading and not supported by any evidence has no evidentiary value.

¶105

It is not open for the defendants to make out a case of fraud at the time of recording evidence. It has to be reflected in the pleadings i.e., in the written statement. Except bald allegations that on account of old age and since there were litigations pending before High Court, plaintiff- Revannasiddappa being nephew of defendant No.1, has taken undue advantage and created a suit agreement in itself would not constitute fraud. Very strangely, the Trial Court has not at all looked into the

¶106

¶107

material on record. All that is stated by the Trial Court is that plaintiffs have admitted that they were taking signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2 on blank papers. The said finding is also contrary to the material on record. The Trial Court has virtually misread the evidence which is rightly culled out by the Appellate Court at paragraph No.26 of the judgment. The Trial Court has generalized and in a very casual manner has recorded a finding that the other material on record would clearly establish the fraud. The finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issue No.1 appears to be quite casual. There is no proper investigation by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has not taken pain to look into the evidence of four independent witnesses who have withstood the test of cross examination. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence to doubt the suit agreement.

¶108

While the Appellate Court has rightly dealt with all the significant details and has rightly come to conclusion that plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing the due execution of suit agreement. defendant No.3 being the

¶109

¶110

legatee can only defend the suit and represent the estate of defendant Nos.1 and 3. The comparative hardship under Section 20 of CPC is not available to the legatee. The judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court is based on legal evidence and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. The judgment rendered by the Trial Court on additional issue No.1 is palpably erroneous and the same is not at all sustainable. The Appellate Court has rightly dealt with it.

¶111

Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 has placed reliance on following judgments;

¶112

i. AIR 1995 ORISSA 273

¶113

ii. AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 702

¶114

iii. AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 925

¶115

iv. AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 4259

¶116

v. AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 2438

¶117

vi. AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 1304

¶118

vii. AIR 1982 ALLAHABAD 376

¶119

¶120

viii.	AIR 1985 CALCUTTA 398
ix.	AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1173
x.	AIR 1992 MADHYA PRADESH 22
xi.	AIR 2004 NOC 65 (INDH.PRA)
xii.	ILR 2006 KAR 1692
xiii.	AIR 2011 KARNATAKA 58
xiv.	AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2150
xv.	(1998) 6 Kant.L.J.547
xvi.	AIR 2002 KERALA 297
xvii.	AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1541
xviii.	R.S.A.No.339/2007 C/W 3345/2006 DD:0611.2012- HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
xix.	(2019) 8 SUPREME COURT 575
xx.	R.S.A.No.2721/2010 DD: 03.01.2020- HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
xxi.	2022 (1) Kar.L.J 328
xxii.	AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 1275
	I have given my anxious consideration to the
judg	ments cited by the Learned counsel appearing for

¶121

¶122

defendant No.3. The principles laid down in the above cited judgments are not applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is

¶123

dismissed .

¶124

The Cross appeal pertains to the findings recorded by both the Courts on the Will. Since this Court has concurred with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.108/2009 relating to the suit agreement vide Ex.P.1, this Court is of the view that the issue relating to Will does not survive for consideration. Defendant No.3,

¶125

as legatee, would succeed only if plaintiffs fail in the present suit. This Court has concurred with the judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court. If the plaintiffs are entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance of contract, then the properties covered under the Will which are also the subject matter of the suit cannot be examined in the present appeal. Any finding recorded by both the Courts on Will is only confined to an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC. Defendant No.3, as

¶126

¶127

legatee, is only entitled to prosecute the proceedings on account of death of defendant No.1. Excluding the properties covered under the suit agreement, it is always open for the present appellant/defendant No.3 herein to file an appropriate suit and establish his right in respect of remaining properties covered under the Will. With these observations, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly,

¶128

the cross second appeal is dismissed .

¶129

Sd/JUDGE

¶130

HDK

Sri. Gangarevanna v. Sri. Revanasiddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gangarevanna v. Sri. Revanasiddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Partharajeurs Vs Savithrammanni

Govindaraje Urs Vs Jayammanni Dead by Lrs Parvathammanni

Sri. Shiva Reddyyappa Vs S.R Bogesh

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs M/S Surya Electricals

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs M/S Zam Zam Enterprises

Sri Husane Sab Vs Smt Hasmat Bee