Regular second appeal dismissed. Specific performance decree affirmed. Court held appellant failed to prove signatures were on blank papers. Settled law requires party alleging concoction to discharge burden.
Second appeal dismissed; concurrent orders of lower courts upholding specific performance of contract affirmed.
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 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2016 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA .V.M. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMY VENGASANDRA VILLAGE & POST, KYSAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 141.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI: VARUN .P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka
AND:
SRI. RAMAPPA .B.V. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY RESIDENT OF NEW TOWN, BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 141.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: NOOR UL HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.244/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.392/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, K.G.F.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant assailing the concurrent judgment of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement to sell dated 03.11.2007 is decreed by both the Courts.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance of contract based on the agreement for sale dated 03.11.2007. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant offered to sell the suit property and has executed the agreement for sale on 03.112007 by receiving part sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. Plaintiff's case is that the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- was
agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed at Sub-registrar office, Bangarpete.
The present suit is filed alleging that the defendant having received substantial sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, went on postponing on one pretext or another, which compelled the plaintiff to issue legal notice on 05.09.2009 calling upon the defendant to complete the transaction. Present suit is filed alleging that though notice was served on the defendant, the defendant has not come forward to complete the transaction.
also claimed that the property is worth Rs.6 lakhs and therefore, disputed the alleged sale transaction set up by the plaintiff.
transaction vide Ex.P1 and payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance amount.
reasoning, the Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal. These concurrent findings are under challenge.
on the suit agreement. His defence is that the signatures were secured on blank stamp papers only as security to the hand loan availed by the defendant. It is a settled proposition of law that a party setting up theory of concoction has to discharge his burden and substantiate that his signatures were secured on the blank papers. If due execution is admitted and contents are disputed, the burden is always on the party disputing the contents. The plaintiff by examining the scribe as PW-2 has successfully discharged his burden. PW-2 is the scribe who has
specifically deposed that in his presence the defendant has received advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and has executed the suit agreement.
NC: 2023:KHC:43838 RSA No. 1308 of 2016
consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed .
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant had substantiated his theory regarding the execution of the agreement on blank papers.
Whether specific performance of the contract should be granted in the absence of rebuttal evidence.
VENKATARAMANAPPA .V.M.
RAMAPPA .B.V.
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
