Allowed

Ashwathamma v. Gowramma

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024CRP/367/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for specific performance of a 2012 agreement of sale was filed in 2017. The High Court held limitation began in 2013 when performance was first sought, expired in 2016, and the legal notice-based cause of action was illusory. The revision petition was allowed and the plaint rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ashwathamma Vs Gowramma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 367 OF 2023 (IO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHWATHAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE H.M. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSAPALYA VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 129.

¶10

H.N. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE H.M. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶11

H.N. SURESHA S/O LATE H.M. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H.N. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE H.M. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT VEERAPPAREDDY LAYOUT MICO BOCH COMPANY 1^ST GATE OPPOSITE ROAD NAGANATHAPURA ROAD (NEW ROAD) NEAR BLUE BELLS APARTMENT ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALURU-560 100.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶17

AND:

¶18

GOWRAMMA W/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶19

H.V. VENKATESHA S/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT HOSAPALYA VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR-572 129.

¶20

JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA D/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O CHINNAGIRIPALYA VILLAGE PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU-572 132.

¶21

RENUKAMMA W/O ERANNA D/O LATE DODDAVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O HANUMENAHALLI VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR-572 129.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶23

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2021 PASSED ON IA IN OS NO.158/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KORATAGERE, REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners-defendants challenge the order passed by the Trial Court, which rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

¶30

The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance, alleging that the husband of defendant No.1 and the father of defendants No.2 to No.4, during his lifetime, had executed an agreement of sale on 27.02.2012, wherein he agreed to convey the subject property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/-. The executant of the agreement of sale, namely H.M. Nagaraju, passed away on 22.05.2012. Following his death, the plaintiff approached the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased H.M. Nagaraju, and called upon them to execute a registered sale deed concerning the scheduled property as per the agreement of sale.

¶31

The petitioners-defendants responded that they would execute the sale deed after their names were mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, the plaintiff learned that the defendants had, in order to defraud the plaintiff’s rights, mutated the revenue records in their names and subdivided the subject lands into 9 guntas in Sy.No.24/3 and 3 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.24/2.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶34

The plaintiff then issued a legal notice dated 31.05.2017, calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed upon receipt of the sale consideration. However, the defendants failed to comply.

¶35

The defendants, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, contending that the alleged agreement of sale was executed on 27.02.2012 and that time was not made the essence of the contract. They further contended that since the suit was filed in 2017, it was barred by limitation and that there was no cause of action to maintain the suit.

¶36

The Trial Court, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, rejected the defendants’ application. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants have filed the present petition challenging the order of the Trial Court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the plaint.

¶38

The agreement of sale was allegedly executed on 27.02.2012, and as per the plaintiff’s averments, the executant of the sale, H.M. Nagaraju, passed away in May 2012. Following his death, the plaintiff allegedly approached the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, requesting them to execute the sale deed. However, from 2013 onwards, the plaintiffs did not take any substantial steps to get the sale deed executed, only issuing a legal notice on 31.05.2017 calling upon the defendants to comply.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶41

In the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 31.05.2017, the date on which the legal notice was issued. However, under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance of the contract, or, if no such date is fixed, from the date on which the plaintiff first became aware that performance had been refused. In the present case, no specific date was fixed for the performance of the contract under the agreement of sale. The plaintiff contends that after the death of H.M. Nagaraju in 2012, they immediately approached the defendants to execute the sale deed. Thus, the limitation period commenced in 2013 when the plaintiff initially requested the defendants to perform the agreement.

¶42

Consequently, the limitation period for filing the suit expired in 2016. As the legal notice was issued only on 31.05.2017, the suit filed thereafter is clearly barred by limitation. The alleged cause of action to file the suit is illusory and has been concocted solely to circumvent the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d). Therefore, the suit for specific performance, having been filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, is barred by law, and the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:32545 CRP No. 367 of 2023

¶46

¶47

ii) The impugned order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, at Koratagere, in O.S.No.158/2017, and the application filed by the defendants No.1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is hereby set aside, consequently, the application is allowed, and the plaint stands rejected.

¶48

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶49

Ashwathamma v. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ashwathamma v. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Roopa Amit Shekhar Vs Canara Bank

Smt Prabhavathamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ananda K Vs Commissionerate of Health and Family Welfare Services

M/S. Sugam Packaging Industries Vs M/S S N Enterprises

Hanumanthappa Vs Sri. Vinay Krishna. H. v.

State Bank of India Vs Sri Ananda