Plaintiff sought declaration and specific performance based on an agreement of sale and powers of attorney; defendants sold the property to another purchaser by registered sale deed before suit was filed. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal at admission stage.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1221 OF 2022 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.S. RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, S/O LATE SRI .SRINIVAS IYENGAR, AGED 89 YEARS, R/AT NO.112, 29TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE - 566 070.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka
AGED 48 YEARS, R1 TO R5 ARE R/AT NO.196/1, 5TH CROSS, J.C.NAGARA, MYSURU. 570010
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
(BY SRI. B.K. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E); SRI. N. NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R5; R2 - DECEASED AS PER POSTAL SHARA)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.55/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.1265/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2022 in R.A.No.55/2022 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018 in O.S. No.1265/2013 on the file of the I Additional I Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
by the plaintiff that, the defendants have executed the unregistered Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff to deal with the suit schedule property and in addition to the same, defendant No.2 has executed the Will dated 25.05.2007 in favour of the plaintiff. It is further stated by the plaintiff that, on 05.07.2007, defendants have executed registered Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff and as such, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have received the total consideration amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the plaint that, the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property during in the year 2013, and thereafter, he came to know that the suit schedule property has been sold by defendant Nos.2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.1 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 03.08.2013. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for relief of
declaration, specific performance contract and permanent injunction against the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant No.1 has filed R.A. No.55/2020, and defendant Nos.3 to 5 have preferred the R.A. No.306/2020. Respondents before the First Appellate Court resisted the appeal. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 14.06.2022, allowed the appeal in R.A. No.55/2020 filed by defendant No.1 and dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant Nos.3 to 5 in R.A. No.306/2020 and as such, set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018 in O.S. No.1265/2013.
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
respondent Nos.3 to 5 submitted that, the First Appellate Court ought to have directed the plaintiff to recover the sale consideration amount from defendant No.1 and as such, sought for modification of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
last resort left for the plaintiff, to seek claim in the property is based on the Sale Agreement dated 05.07.2007 (Ex.P-16). The trial Court after considering the material on record erroneously decreed the suit, directing defendant Nos.2 to 5 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, despite the fact that, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have executed a registered sale deed dated 03.08.2013 in favour of defendant No.1.
recorded by the trial Court is nonest, and cannot be considered. Insofar as the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2020 filed by defendant No.1 is concerned, the First Appellate Court after considering the material on record has arrived at a conclusion that, defendant No.1 has proved that, he is bonafide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration, and on the other hand though the plaintiff has placed reliance on the Sale of Agreement dated 05.07.2007, the plaintiff ought to have taken step to execute the Sale Agreement dated 05.07.2007 at earliest point of time and as the plaintiff has not issued any notice to defendant Nos.2 to 5, calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed, the First Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in
NC: 2024:KHC:31231 RSA No. 1221 of 2022
R.A. No.55/2020. That apart, the case of the plaintiff is seeking relief of specific performance, is based on the Sale Agreement dated 05.07.2007. However, the suit was filed on 07.10.2013 after a period of Five years, Nine months and therefore, as there are no cogent reasons have been assigned by the plaintiff with regard to the circumstances of the case that he has made effort to get the registered the sale deed from defendant Nos.2 to 5, and therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in respect of judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.55/2020. In the result, the plaintiff/appellant has not made out a case for framing the substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of C.P.C. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of the admission itself.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 05.07.2007 was barred by delay in seeking registration of the sale deed
Whether a substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC to warrant interference with the first appellate court's judgment
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri M.S. Ramaswamy Iyengar
Smt Renuka W/o Late Sri.T.Srinivas
Sri S. Kumara
Sri S. Basavaraju
Sri S. Mahesh
Smt S. Gayithri
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
