Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of a specific performance suit based on a 1984 sale agreement; attesting witnesses denied execution and the suit was held time-barred. The High Court found no substantial question of law 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 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2018 (SP)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
W/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O GONIBEDU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NC: 2024:KHC:28431 RSA No. 676 of 2018
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2024)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.11.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.303/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
learned counsel for appellant and also the learned counsel for respondents.
Trial Court that late Ningappa S/o late Puttegowda executed a sale agreement on 28.01.1984 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of
Rs.37,500/- by receiving advance sale consideration Rs.30,000/-. It is also pleaded that plaintiff was always ready to perform her part of contract and defendants fails to perform their part of contract. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff and her husband have got created the sale agreement by fraud and misrepresentation. The suit is also barred by limitation and they are not entitled for any relief of specific performance. The plaintiff also sought for alternative relief for recovery of Rs.30,000/- with interest.
NC: 2024:KHC:28431 RSA No. 676 of 2018
relief of alternative relief of refund of money, since the very agreement is not proved.
evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are the signatories to the agreement of sale Ex.P1 and also the adjacent land owners. The Courts below comes to the conclusion that the appellant has not discharged his initial burden of proving of very execution of document of Ex.P1 and First Appellate Court also confirmed the same. The burden of proving issue No.4 was on the respondent and hence this Court has to admit and frame substantial question of law.
considering the material on record, the Trial Court while considering the material on record in paragraph No.32 comes to the conclusion that the witnesses who have been examined before the Court that is PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the very execution of document and also taken note of Section 16 of the specific relief Act that is ready and willingness of the party also to be considered while granting the relief and the suit is filed after lapse of 22 years and hence not made out any ground to grant the relief of specific performance.
NC: 2024:KHC:28431 RSA No. 676 of 2018
same is observed in paragraph No.28. Apart from taken note of evidence of witnesses and witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and also in paragraph No.35 taken note of recital of Ex.P1 that is mutation register extract pertaining to the suit schedule property and Ningappa died on 20.05.1991, even after issuance of alleged legal notice to Ningappa, the said Ningappa has not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff has the knowledge of refuse of perform the contract by Ningappa by lay back in the year 1981 itself. Inspite of that not taken any steps to institute
the suit against Ningappa within a period of limitation. The fact that the notice was also issued during the lifetime of Ningappa is also not in dispute. Having considered the said material also, answered the point No.3 as affirmative that suit is barred by limitation since during the life time of Ningappa itself notice was issued. The suit is filed in the year 2006 after lapse of more than 15 years and considered the material on record with regard to the genuineness of document and even compared the
signature available on document referring the judgment of this Court reported in 2014 (4) KCCR 3512 (B.SRINIVASAN V/s SMT.PADMAVATHAMMA) and having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly the evidence of PW2, the signature has not been proved and when such being the case when the very agreement has not been proved and also witness who have been examined as PW2 and PW3 have also not supported the case of the prosecution. When such being the case, question of granting the relief of specific performance does not arise even assuming that the sale agreement is proved, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance and hence I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law by invoking Section 100 of CPC.
ORDER
i) The Second Appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:28431 RSA No. 676 of 2018
ii) In view of dismissal of appeal, pending IAs’ if
any do not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88
3 issues framed by the court
Was the sale agreement Ex.P1 duly proved when its attesting witnesses did not support the plaintiff's case?
Is the suit for specific performance barred by limitation given the alleged refusal in the 1980s and suit filed in 2006?
Does any substantial question of law arise to admit the second appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.Srinivasan v/s Smt. PadmavathammaRelied on¶9
2014 (4) KCCR 3512 (B.SRINIVASAN V/s SMT.PADMAVATHAMMA)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt Sarojamma
Chennamma
Manjappa
Bhagyamma
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
