Second appeal against concurrent decrees enforcing an agreement of sale over five guntas of land. The court found the defendant had admitted partition and execution of the agreement, held no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1678 OF 2016 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O LATE GIDDEGOWDA, R/AT KOKKANAGAHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N PUTTALINGAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT) R2 & R3 SERVER AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2016 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.59/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.203/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in R.A.no.59/2010 and judgment and decree dated 09.03.2010 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan, in O.S.no.203/2006, this appeal is filed.
presence of witnesses and to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration before Sub-Registrar. It was further stated that defendants had agreed to keep property with nil encumbrance and to get khata in name of defendant no.2 and execute sale deed within three months. It was stated, though plaintiff waited for three months and requested defendants to execute registered sale deed, defendant no.2 sought enhancement of consideration and for extension of time. Therefore, a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid on 25.08.2006 by writing a shara on agreement and time was extended for one month. Even same expired, but, defendants failed to come forward to execute registered sale deed, though, plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Hence, suit was filed.
statement. Defendants no.1 and 3 were placed ex-parte . Defendant no.2 opposed suit on ground that admittedly extent of 02 Acres 14 guntas was ancestral joint family property of defendants and as there was no partition among family members, extent which was agreed to be sold could not be identified. However, receipt of advance amount was admitted.
NC: 2024:KHC:50457 RSA No. 1678 of 2016
It was contended that period stipulated in agreement of sale had expired and vendor had failed to comply with terms and therefore, suit was liable for dismissed.
issues.
three others as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On other hand, defendant no.2 examined himself and four others as DWs.1 to 5 and got marked copy of reply notice as Ex.D1.
and 2 in affirmative, issue no.3 in negative, issue no.4 partly in affirmative and issue no.5 by decreeing suit and directing
defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit property within three months from date of judgment.
negative and point no.4 by dismissing appeal. Aggrieved,
defendant no.1 has preferred this second appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:50457 RSA No. 1678 of 2016
defendant no.2 on 26.09.2006, same was sought to be established by production of legal notice along with acknowledgements and reply notice as Exs.P2 to P6 respectively. Apart from plaintiff deposing as PW-1, she also examined scribe and attesting witnesses as PWs.2 to 4, who supported plaintiff's case.
plaintiff. It also noted that plaintiff had produced original agreement of sale. Though, he sought to deny his signature on agreement, it was marked as Exs.P1(b), P1(f) and P1(j) in cross-examination. Trial Court observed that defendant no.2 admitted that partition had already taken place in his family. It noted that plaintiff had also examined his scribe and attesting witnesses to Ex.P1 - agreement of sale. In view of above, it concluded that plaintiff had established due execution of Ex.P1
– agreement of sale for total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, after receipt of advance of amount of Rs.62,000/-. It also observed that in view of admitted partition between defendants, their objections against grant of specific performance of agreement of sale was not substantiated and it proceeded to pass decree.
NC: 2024:KHC:50457 RSA No. 1678 of 2016
family property by referring to admission that there was already partition in family of defendants and after execution of agreement of sale, khata in respect of suit property was changed in name of defendant no.2.
NC: 2024:KHC:50457 RSA No. 1678 of 2016
having been established, both Courts after due consideration of entire material on record has held agreement of sale as established and granted decree of specific performance.
devoid of merit and dismissed . Consequently, I.A.no.1/2016 is
also dismissed.
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether specific performance of an agreement of sale over joint family property required all coparceners to be parties.
Whether concurrent decrees granting specific performance were sustainable given claims of unpartitioned joint family ownership.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. RANGAMMA
SMT. BHAGYAMMA
SHIVANNA
BHEEMEGOWDA
RAVI V HOSMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
