Sri M C Gangadhara Vs Sri. B. Kumara Swamy

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 22.09.2020. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶25

This is an appeal from the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.

¶26

For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶27

4. The plaint averments are as follows:

¶28

The plaintiff is an agriculturist and businessman by profession and a permanent resident of Chitradurga city. The defendant is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No.2/2, Matada Kurubarahatti in Chitradurga. He became the owner of the property under a registered document dated 09.01.1980 and was cultivating the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

said land. He converted the land into a non-agricultural purpose on 06.04.1995 by virtue of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, in ALNSR:69/85-86. After the conversion, the katha of the property was also made out in his name.

¶32

As he needed money for family necessities and to discharge the debts of the State Bank of Mysore, Chitradurga, he had taken a security of Re.Sy.No.16/1, hence he put up the schedule property for sale. After negotiations, the defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). After negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the scheduled property from the defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). In furtherance thereof, the plaintiff paid advance sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the defendant, and the defendant received the same from the plaintiff. The defendant executed the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff on 23.04.2007, and it was a bilateral agreement.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is stated that various terms and conditions were incorporated in the agreement, and the same were binding on the defendant. The defendant expressly agreed to executed sale deed in favor of plaintiff within a period of 24 months from the date of agreement by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) along with all the person who are having right over the suit property at the cost of the plaintiff either in the name of the plaintiff or to the name of any person suggested by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, i.e., to pay the balance sale consideration and take the registered sale deed in his favor. Despite repeated requests, there was no response from the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 18.04.2009 to the defendant, calling upon him to execute the registered sale deed, but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit for specific performance.

¶36

After service of the summons, the defendant appeared before the Court and filed a written statement denying the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

plaint averments. The defendant contended that in 2006, an extent of 03 Guntas of land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India, and compensation was given at Rs.21,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) per acre. Hence, he specifically contended that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit. It is also contended that in 2007, he was facing hard days in running a drama company for want of collections due to the failure of rains at that time, he approached the plaintiff for financial help, and the plaintiff agreed to advance the loan and demanded for execution of a Mortgage of the scheduled property. However, he got the document prepared as an agreement for sale. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶40

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2016 partly decreed the suit, and the defendant was directed to pay the earnest money of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% from the date of the sale agreement. Aggrieved by the judgment and

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. On an appeal, the First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2020 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the captioned appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

¶44

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 27.08.2024. On that day, the appeal was admitted, and the following substantial question of law was framed:

¶45

Whether the finding recorded by both the Courts below is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.30/2011 in a suit for specific performance with that of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.16/2009, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property?

¶46

This Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, framed the following additional substantial question of law:

¶47

Whether both the Courts have properly exercised the discretion to refuse the relief of

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

specific performance in the absence of a plea and evidence?

¶51

Counsel for the appellant has urged several

¶52

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care.

¶53

The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue relates to the refusal to grant the relief of specific performance. This is an interesting case involving a father, son and an agreement holder. In this case, the plaintiff sued to enforce the specific performance of a contract to execute a conveyance in respect of the suit schedule property. The law is well settled that the plaintiff must aver, as well as prove, his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligation. The onus of proof of being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement to the date of filing of the suit is on the plaintiff. As the Trial Court has already adjudicated and answered issues in favor of the plaintiff, extensive factual discussion regarding the proof of specific performance is rendered superfluous. The Trial Court, having found that the plaintiff has successfully proved the

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

execution of the sale agreement and his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, erred in law by erroneously/ arbitrarily exercising its discretionary powers to dismiss the suit.

¶57

The relief of specific performance is discretionary, and it is not given merely because it is lawful to do so, but is governed by sound judicial principles. The question as to what incidents or consequences shall be deemed highly unreasonable must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The exercise of discretion to order specific performance would require the Court to be satisfied that the circumstances are such that it is equitable to make such a decree. The Court must state the reasons for exercising the discretion in either way.

¶58

Yet, it has been said that, as an ordinary rule, specific performance should be granted, and ought to be denied only when equitable considerations show that damages would constitute all adequate relief. The Court may exercise discretion not to grant specific performance if the plaintiff has an unfair

¶59

advantage over the defendant, and the performance of a contract would impose great hardship on the defendant. These

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

circumstances do not exist in the present case. In the absence of pleadings, the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court was arbitrary and capricious. Once the essential ingredients for specific performance, namely the execution of the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, were established, the Court could not have legally declined the relief based on a misplaced exercise of discretion.

¶63

The Trial Court, having concluded that the plaintiff satisfied all the mandatory requirements under the Specific Relief Act, ought to have decreed the suit and was not justified in dismissing the same by an arbitrary exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The findings on the execution of the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness created a right in favor of the plaintiff; the subsequent dismissal, predicated solely on a wrongful exercise of discretion, amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The circumstances would justify the interference by this Court to pass an order for the specific performance of a contract, and the plaintiff must succeed in the suit.

¶64

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46578 RSA No. 1023 of 2020

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The substantial questions of law are answered

¶67

accordingly.

¶68

The Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2016, passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, in O.S.No.30/2011 and the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2020 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in R.A.No.26/2016, are set aside. The plaintiff's suit is decreed. The defendant is directed to execute the sale

¶69

deed within thirty days from today by receiving the balance consideration amount, if any, failing which the plaintiff to secure the sale deed through the Court. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the decree accordingly.

¶70

Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed .

¶71

Because of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶72

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶73

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30.1

Sri M C Gangadhara v. Sri. B. Kumara Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M C Gangadhara v. Sri. B. Kumara Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinpla Plating Private Limited Vs Rapsri Engineering Products Company Limited

M/S Menzies Aviation Bobba Bengaluru Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator

M/S Artek Enterprises Private Limited Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Ordyn Technologies Private Limited

Ramachandrappa Vs Renukamma

Sri M Srinivasa Vs Smt Sarojamma

Sri M C Gangadhara Vs Sri C.K. Somashekar