In this regular second appeal, the High Court at Bengaluru dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, an unsuccessful plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract. The court held there was no substantial question of law and found the appeal devoid of merits as the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness.
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 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2016 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. PAPAIAH, S/O LATE CHICKKANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BIDARAGUTTE, SEETHAKAL POST, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA. M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. C. ARASAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SRIRAMANAHALLY, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.5023/2016 (OLD RA.NO.71/2006) ON THE FILE OF THE 4th ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.3/2004 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) AND J.M.F.C KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract is dismissed by both
the Courts.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance of contract. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant agreed to sell the suit property and executed an agreement to sell on 19.06.1985 and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,000/-. The plaintiff further alleged that, as per the conditions enumerated in the sale agreement, plaintiff was required to pay the entire
mortgage amount to one K.S.Aswathanarayana and get the property redeemed. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff, alleging that he has got the property redeemed by paying the entire mortgage amount and that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and defendant has not come forward to comply his part of contract.
NC: 2023:KHC:44103 RSA No. 1119 of 2016
and documentary evidence and produced in all eleven documents. The defendant, except leading oral evidence, has not produced any documentary evidence.
properties, the Trial Court held that no explanation is forthcoming by the plaintiff as to why defendant alone is bound to pay the entire mortgage amount. It is in this background, the Trial Court was of the view that plaintiff is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance. The suit is dismissed.
enforce an agreement dated 19.06.1985; the suit is filed
after 19 years. Both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness. To secure discretionary relief of specific performance on contract, the plaintiff is bound to comply the requisite ingredients of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Unless plaintiff establishes and substantiates his readiness and willingness, he is not entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance of contract.
note of the fact that since plaintiff and defendant are brothers and suit properties are joint family ancestral properties, the defendant alone was not liable to seek redemption by paying the entire mortgage amount. It is in this background, both the Courts doubted the alleged payment of Rs.2,000/- by plaintiff. Even on this count,
both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance of contract.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant established readiness and willingness to perform the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the alleged execution of the sale agreement and payment of mortgage can be substantiated in light of joint family ancestral property status.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. C. PAPAIAH
SRI. C. ARASAPPA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
