Dismissed

Sri.Gangadharaiah v. Lakkamma

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024RSA/1668/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A regular second appeal where the unsuccessful plaintiff sought specific performance of agricultural land sale agreements. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that defendants lacked ownership at the time of the first agreement and disbelieving the claim regarding a subsequent agreement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of the trial court and the first appellate court were upheld.

Sri.Gangadharaiah Vs Lakkamma — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1668 OF 2019 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.GANGADHARAIAH, S/O MOOGURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/ O HARIJANA COLONY, YACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 562123.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI GIRISH M. K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

LAKKAMMA, W/O MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶15

MUDDAIAH, S/O SHANUBHAGOWDAHALLI, SIDDEGOWDA

¶16

SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS.

¶17

BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶18

MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶21

PAPANNA, S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶22

MANJULAMMA D/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶23

PADMA D/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDING AT BAJJAPPANA RICE MILL, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-562123.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.13/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.161/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL.

¶26

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

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who is

¶29

before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2012 passed in O.S. No.161/2004 on

¶30

the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal ('trial

¶31

Court' for short), which is confirmed by judgment and

¶32

Page No.2 is Retyped and Replaced vide chamber order dated:19.10.2024.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶35

decree dated 19.08.2019 passed in R.A. No.13/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal.

¶36

The above suit in O.S. No.161/2004 is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction.

¶37

It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2 and that on 30.06.1985 defendants had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit scheduled property by receiving a sum of Rs.4,375/- and that they had agreed to execute and register a deed of sale after getting change of khata and pahani. That the defendants till 24.11.2003 did not turn up to execute and register the deed of sale and they demanded more amount. That on 24.11.2003, defendants executed another agreement agreeing to receive additional sum of Rs.9,000/as a sale consideration. That the defendants received an additional sum of Rs.4,000/-. Thus, in aggregate, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.8,375/- to the defendants and he was due and

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶40

liable to pay only Rs.625/- as per the sale agreement dated 24.11.2003. That the defendants had undertaken to

¶41

execute and register a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Despite repeated requests of the plaintiff, defendants have failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notices on 14.06.2004 and 12.07.2004 calling upon the defendants to execute the deed of sale. The said notices were met with untenable reply by the defendants constraining him to file the suit.

¶42

Defendants filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averment except admitting the fact that defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2. It is specifically contended that the defendant No.1 is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property having purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 01.07.1985 and the said property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1 and she improved the said property by growing agricultural crops thereon. All the revenue records are

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶44

standing in the name of defendant No.1 and she is paying the land revenue to the Government. It is contended that defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1, who has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest or the possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff being powerful and rich man associated with anti-social elements backed up with political influence has created, concocted and forged the documents with an intention to grab the property. Hence sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶45

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration.

¶46

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants being the owners of the suit schedule property have executed an agreement of sale on 30.06.1985 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and received consideration of Rs.4,375/- and handed over the possession of the suit schedule property?

¶47

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants have further executed a new agreement of sale on 24.11.2003 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.9,000/- and received part consideration of Rs.4,000/-?

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶50

3. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that the defendants have failed to execute the regular sale deed as agreed?

¶51

4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

¶52

5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are causing interference to his possession over the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint?

¶53

6. Whether the valuation made and payment of court fee is correct and sufficient?

¶54

7. Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

¶55

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for?

¶56

9. What order or decree?"

¶57

The plaintiff examined four witnesses as PWs.1

¶58

to 4 and exhibited 11 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P11. Two witnesses have been examined as defendants and exhibited three documents marked as Ex.D1 to D3.

¶59

On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence,

¶60

the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 8 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶63

same, plaintiff preferred regular appeal in R.A. No.13/2012. Considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following issues for its consideration.

¶64

"Point No.1: Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of sale agreements?

¶65

Point No.2: Whether the judgment of trial Court under appeal is illegal, perverse and against the facts of the case which is warranting interference?

¶66

Point No.3:Whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as sought for?

¶67

Point No.4: For what order?"

¶68

8. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence,

¶69

the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶70

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶71

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence, more particularly, the content of Ex.P1 - Sale agreement dated 30.06.1985 in terms of which though the sale deed was not executed in favour of the defendants, they were the agreement holders of the suit schedule property and that they being in need of amount, agreed to sell the property after they obtaining the deed of sale and the revenue records in their name. That the plaintiff acting upon the said assurance had entered into an agreement dated 30.06.1985. He further submits that even after obtaining

¶72

the deed of sale in the name of defendant No.1, defendants did not come forward to execute the deed of sale and when plaintiff requested, they demanded for higher amount. Therefore, he submits the second agreement was executed on 24.11.2003 by agreeing to pay the additional amount. It is further submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in not

¶73

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶75

appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. In that, the opinion of the signature expert is ambiguous and does not make out as to whether the signature on Ex.P2 - Agreement of sale dated 24.11.2003 is that of the defendants. In the absence of clear evidence, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not to have held that second agreement was not executed by the defendants. Thus, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court suffers perversity giving rise to substantial questions of law and requires consideration at the hands of the Court.

¶76

Heard. Perused the records.

¶77

It is the case of the plaintiff that he entered into

¶78

an agreement of sale dated 30.06.1985 in which, the defendant No.2 who is the husband of defendant No.1

¶79

agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.4,375/-. The record and the evidence reveal that as on the date of the said agreement, neither defendant No.1

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶82

nor defendant No.2 had any share, right, title and interest over the suit schedule property capable of conveying in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of the fact that defendant No.1 became the owner of the suit schedule property only on 01.07.1985 i.e., the date on which the deed of sale was executed by the vender of the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court that the claim of the plaintiff having entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 becomes illusory and fallacious as neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 had neither any right to convey the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff nor to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff.

¶83

As regards the claim of the plaintiff entering into second agreement on 24.11.2003 by agreeing to pay additional amount, also runs contrary to the facts circumstances of the matter, in that according to the

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶86

plaintiff when defendants had already handed over the possession of the schedule property in terms of agreement of sale dated 30.06.1985 under Ex.P1, there was no need or necessity for the plaintiff to have entered into second agreement on 24.11.2003 and thereafter filing the suit seeking specific performance of both the agreements. Nothing prevented the plaintiff to obtain the deed of sale directly by paying the agreed sale consideration. If the case of the defendants demanding additional amount and the plaintiff having paid the same and entering into the second agreement is to be believed, no justification or explanation is given by the plaintiff as to what prevented him from directly obtaining the sale deed from the defendants instead of entering into agreement for the second time that too, after 18 years from the date of first agreement. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and defendants entering into the second agreement.

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC:8962 RSA No. 1668 of 2019

¶89

Further, the trial Court has subjected the agreement for signature verification and has found that plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the said agreement.

¶90

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on facts having found as above, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal and no irregularity can be found with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and First Appellate Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed .

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

VBS

¶93

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

Sri.Gangadharaiah v. Lakkamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Gangadharaiah v. Lakkamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mysore City Corporation Vs Shri H N Shivananda Shetty

U J Naijanya Vs Smt. Alphonsa

Muttanna Vs Jagadish Kumar B C

Smt. Manjula Vs Smt. Asha

Dr Neelakanta Vs Sm Laxmidevi

Ramesha Vs Eshwarappa