Dismissed

C S Nagaraja v. Sri J Raviprasad

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023RSA/392/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal filed by an unsuccessful defendant under Section 100 of CPC was dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts which decreed specific performance of an agreement to sell, finding no infirmity in their evidence appreciation regarding the agreement's execution and the parties' willingness.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by lower Courts.

C S Nagaraja Vs Sri J Raviprasad — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

R.S.A NO. 392 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C S NAGARAJA

¶9

S/O C S SIDDAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NEAR PATHI HOSPITAL, PATHI HOSPITAL ROAD, WARD NO.4, DOOR NO.3413, PRASHANTHNAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . SRI J RAVIPRASAD S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶14

2 . SRI J R SHASHI KUMAR S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

3 . SRI J SRINATHA S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH,

¶16

¶17

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT CSI HOSPITAL ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA H V, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

¶21

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.36/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2019 PASSED IN OS No.240/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶22

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant questioning the concurrent judgments of the Courts below wherein the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance of agreement is decreed.

¶26

For the sake of convenience the parties are

¶27

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶28

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶29

Plaintiff contends that defendant is the absolute

¶30

owner and that he offered to sell the suit schedule property which was accepted by plaintiff. It is specific case of the plaintiff that defendant has executed an agreement to sell on 4.12.2003 and total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,20,000/-. Plaintiff has further contended that defendant has received Rs.One lakh towards advance amount and it was agreed that

¶31

¶32

the transaction has to be completed within three months by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.5,20,000/-. Plaintiff has further alleged that inspite of repeated reminders, defendant did not come forward to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, plaintiff was compelled to issue notice on 20.7.2006. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant approached plaintiff and requested one month's time to complete the transaction. Inspite of extension of time and second notice issued by plaintiff on 12.10.2006, it is alleged that defendant failed to complete the transaction and hence, the present suit.

¶33

On receipt of summons, defendant contested the suit and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant alleged that one M. Krishnappa son of Marappa has created an agreement and he has filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.838/1993. Defendant claimed

¶34

¶35

that he has seriously contested the said suit which came to be dismissed and the said Krishnappa has preferred an appeal which is pending consideration in R.A.73/2003. Defendant therefore, contended that he has no intention to sell the suit property and claimed that he has sufficient income and is financially sound as he owns landed property and house property. The defendant also alleged that the suit agreement is created by the plaintiff with the help of witnesses to the alleged agreement and a frivolous suit is filed. The defendant also disputed the signature on the alleged suit agreement and claimed that he has lodged a compliant with the jurisdictional police.

¶36

The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff has examined both the attesting witnesses to the suit agreement to substantiate his claim. Pending trial, the disputed

¶37

¶38

signature on the suit agreement along with the admitted signatures of the defendant were referred to the finger print expert, who is examined as C.W.1 and his report is marked at Ex.C5.

¶39

The trial Court having examined the

¶40

pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence and also the Commissioner's report answered Issue Nos.1

¶41

to 3 in the affirmative. The trial Court while examining the oral evidence of attesting witnesses who are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and in absence of rebuttal evidence held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving due execution of suit agreement vide Ex.P1. The trial Court has also taken cognizance of finger print expert's report which is found to be in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. The finger print expert has opined that the admitted signatures and the signature found on the disputed document are similar and identical. The trial Court while answering

¶42

¶43

Issue No.2 in the affirmative further held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

¶44

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal in R.A.No.36/2019.

¶45

The appellate Court as a final fact finding authority has independently assessed the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that defendant offered to sell the suit property and has executed an agreement to sell by receiving an advance amount of Rs.One lakh and the appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. I have examined the findings recorded by both the Courts on Issue Nos.1 and 2 and I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶47

¶48

judgment cited by the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶49

The defendant has denied the suit

¶50

agreement. The defendant has specifically disputed his signature on the suit agreement and has come forward with a theory of concoction. The trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence of the attesting witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Both the witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and have supported the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is further strengthened as the report of the finger print expert has come to the aid of the plaintiff. The finger print expert has opined that the signatures found on the disputed suit agreement and the admitted signatures are one and the same. On examining the conclusions and reasons assigned by the Courts below, this Court is more than satisfied that the findings recorded by both the Courts

¶51

¶52

on Issue No.1 is in accordance with law and I do not find any infirmities.

¶53

Both the Courts referring to two legal notices issued by the plaintiff and more particularly, the second legal notice sent by the plaintiff which is refused by the defendant have concurrently held that plaintiff has substantiated his readiness and willingness. Both the Courts have held that defendant has failed to substantiate his defence while crossexamining plaintiff. Both the Courts have held that nothing is elicited by the counsel appearing for defendant in the cross-examination of plaintiff on readiness and willingness.

¶54

Both the Courts have held that plaintiff has proved the suit agreement and has also proved his readiness and willingness. The theory of concoction set up by defendant is out rightly rejected by both the

¶55

¶56

Courts. This Court in an appeal under Section 100 has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reverse the conclusions recorded by both the Courts. If both the Courts on appreciation of entire material on record have exercised judicial discretion and while doing so have satisfied themselves that the circumstances are such that it is equitable to pass a decree for specific performance and detailed reasons are recorded for having exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said discretion exercised by both the Courts. The trial Court, in particular, has also taken note of the conduct of the defendant who has gone to the extent of disputing the transaction alleging that it is a concocted document. This Court is satisfied that both the Courts have taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of plaintiff and defendant and their respective interest under the contract. This Court is

¶57

¶58

more than satisfied that both the Courts have exercised discretion judiciously and the same do not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶59

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶60

following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The second appeal is dismissed.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

*alb/-

C S Nagaraja v. Sri J Raviprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C S Nagaraja v. Sri J Raviprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Shivalingaiah Vs Smt.Mahadevamma

P. Gokuldas Bhat, Vs Sri. Laxmi Venkatramana Temple

Sri. Venkataswamy @ Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Sri. B. Venkataswamy Reddy

Shankarappa @ Shankaraiah Vs Sri. H.N. Muddukrishna

Visveswaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd. Vs Wild Life Conservation Action Team

Smt Sarojamma Vs Sri Shivaji