Allowed

Sri. C. Thimmegowda v. Sri. C. Sriranga

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023RSA/1098/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a regular second appeal contesting specific performance of a contract. The appellant (defendant No.1) was dismissed due to lack of locus standi after finding he engaged in double dealing. The dispute effectively lies between the plaintiff and another defendant.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed on ground of lack of locus standi of the appellant.

Sri. C. Thimmegowda Vs Sri. C. Sriranga — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39585 RSA No. 1098 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1098 OF 2016 (SP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. C. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT SRIRAMAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. L.S. VENKATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. C. SRIRANGA, S/O LATE CHELUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, Digitally signed by RESIDING AT SRIRAMAPURA VILLAGE, REKHA ANKAIAH Location: High KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, Court of MYSORE - 570 001. Karnataka

¶12

SRI. SATHYANARAYANA M, S/O MUNIVENKATA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1089 NEW NO.40, 10TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39585 RSA No. 1098 of 2016

¶15

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.211/2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.404/2005 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSORE.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1/owner of the suit property, who has questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below in granting relief of specific performance of contract in favour of plaintiff.

¶19

For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties

¶20

are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

¶21

This Court has already admitted the second

¶22

appeal filed by defendant No.2/purchaser, who has questioned the judgment and decree rendered in favour of

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39585 RSA No. 1098 of 2016

¶24

plaintiff granting discretionary relief of specific

¶25

performance of contract.

¶26

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether defendant No.1, who has supported defendant No.2, who claims to be a bonafide purchaser in a written statement, has retracted from his statement made in the written statement and has supported the plaintiff during trial, has locus to question the decree for specific performance of contract granted in favour of plaintiff.

¶27

On meticulous examination of records, this

¶28

Court would find that the dispute is between plaintiff and defendant no.2. The plaintiff is asserting right based on an agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 dated 30.04.2005, vide Ex.P.1. Defendant No.2 is asserting that he is a bonafide purchaser and that defendant No.2, for legal necessity, sold the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- under a registered sale

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39585 RSA No. 1098 of 2016

¶30

deed dated 13.06.2005. Defendant No.2 also traces his rights through an agreement to sell dated 27.04.2005, vide Ex.D.4.

¶31

The connected second appeal, which is

¶32

admitted, has to adjudicate the rights of plaintiff and defendant No.2. The decree granted in favour of plaintiff does not in any way prejudice defendant No.1, who is the main culprit and is found guilty of entering into two transactions simultaneously. Monetarily, defendant No.1 has taken money from plaintiff as well as received the entire sale consideration from defendant No.2. It is also notified that the stand taken by defendant No.1 is found to be inconsistent. Therefore, this captioned second appeal filed by defendant No.1 does not invite any substantial question of law to be dealt with in an appeal filed by defendant No.1, who has executed an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff and has also conveyed the title in favour of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2005. However, it is open for defendant No.1 to

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39585 RSA No. 1098 of 2016

¶34

contest the connected second appeal and therefore, the captioned second appeal is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of locus of defendant No.1 in independently maintaining the second appeal.

¶35

Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶36

In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK

Sri. C. Thimmegowda v. Sri. C. Sriranga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. Thimmegowda v. Sri. C. Sriranga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sreenivasa Vs Manjunatha

Sri Sonnappa Vs Smt Sujaya

Smt B M Honnamma Vs Sri P P Poonacha

Parameshwara S Vs Subbammannamma

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the Chairman

Smt H G Krishnakumari Vs the Divisional Controller