Dismissed

Sri.L.Munikrishnappa v. Sri.Siddalingappa

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023RSA/750/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a 1990 agreement to purchase property. The High Court dismissed the appeal at admission, holding the suit was time-barred due to the appellante 18-year delay in enforcing the contract after the Fragmentation Act was repealed.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.

Sri.L.Munikrishnappa Vs Sri.Siddalingappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23870 RSA No. 750 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.750 OF 2016 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.L.MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNILAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT A.K.COLONY, CHAMARAJPET, CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN & TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI.SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE AYAVU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND QUIET CORNER SCHOOL, CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN & TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC., SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶16

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

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa.A., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:23870 RSA No. 750 of 2016

¶21

This is an appeal from the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶23

4. The plaint averments are as under.

¶24

It is stated that on 10.06.1990 the defendant and his mother offered to sell the suit property to him, and he agreed to purchase the same for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only). It is said that at that time, the Fragmentation Act was in force and hence the sale deed was not executed. It is averred that the after repeal of the Act, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed, but the defendants refused to perform their part of the contract. Hence, he initiated the action.

¶25

After the service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through their counsel and filed a written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He also denied the agreement. Among other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23870 RSA No. 750 of 2016

¶27

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed Issues. To substantiate their claims, respective parties led in evidence, and documents were marked and exhibited. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. On appeal, the First Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several contentions.

¶29

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the Judgments & Decrees of both Courts with utmost care.

¶30

The facts have been sufficiently stated and the same does not require reiteration.

¶31

The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff specifically contended that there is an agreement to sell the property and since the Fragmentation Act was in force hence,

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23870 RSA No. 750 of 2016

¶33

the sale deed could not have been executed. Before this court

¶34

also he has adhered to the said contention.

¶35

A good deal of argument is addressed on the Fragmentation Act. Learned counsel argued that after the repeal of the Act, the plaintiff demanded the execution of the absolute sale deed, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract.

¶36

Considered the submission about the Fragmentation Act. An attempt is made on behalf of the appellant to contend that in view of the Fragmentation Act, the sale deed could not have been executed. It is hard to accept the said contention. The reason is quite plain and simple. The Fragmentation Act was repealed in the year 1991. It is pivotal to note that the plaintiff did not take any steps to enforce the contract till 2008. I may venture to say that he woke up later i.e., after a lapse of 18 years, and tried to enforce the alleged contract. Until 2008 he did not take any steps. It is only on 04.07.2008 for the first time he called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. I can say only this much that the suit is hopelessly barred by time.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23870 RSA No. 750 of 2016

¶38

Furthermore, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rejected the claim of specific performance. In my view, both the Courts are justified in doing so.

¶39

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. As a result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Sri.L.Munikrishnappa v. Sri.Siddalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.L.Munikrishnappa v. Sri.Siddalingappa

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. Syed Aweza Ahmed Vs Sri. Shaju Koshy

Smt. Amirabi Vs Smt. Gowramma

Sri S B Jayaramu Vs Sri B Jagadisha

Smt.Sharada Shedthy Vs Smt.Madhu Hengsu

Smt. N. Gangarathnamma Vs Smt. Gangamma

Sri S B Anilkumar Vs Sri Maggada Mane Devaraju