K v S Prakash Vs Kumarswamy Since Dead by Lrs — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2025)

K v S Prakash Vs Kumarswamy Since Dead by Lrs — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. +2 more

Court's answer

The plaintiff produced no record (such as by issuing a notice) to establish that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and thus failed to prove the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Ratio / Principle

Ex.P1, the Agreement of Sale dated 30.11.1995, contained a recital that the sale was to be concluded within 6 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement; from the perusal of Ex.P1 it is clear that time was the essence of the contract.

Key takeaways

Both the courts below had concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was/is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.ratio¶85
Although time was the essence of the contract, the plaintiff, after expiry of the 6-month period, did not file the suit within 3 years from the date of failure to perform his part of the contract, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the suit was therefore barred by limitation.ratio¶85
Both the courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments, and this Court found no error in them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (filed under Order 42 Rule 1 r/w Section 100 CPC) by the plaintiff against the concurrent dismissal of his suit O.S.No.264/2005 for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 30.11.1995, alleged to have been executed by the defendants' father for Rs.1,02,000/- (advance Rs.1,001/-), and of first appeal R.A.No.42/2011. HELD: (i) Ex.P1 required the sale to be concluded within six months of the agreement; time was therefore the essence of the contract; (ii) the plaintiff produced no record (including no notice) to show he was always ready and willing to perform, and failed to prove the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, both courts below having concurrently found otherwise; (iii) the suit, not filed within three years of the failure to perform after expiry of the six-month period, was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (iv) the courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arose. DISPOSITION: Regular Second Appeal dismissed; judgments and decree of the courts below (judgment dated 23.04.2011 in O.S.No.264/2005; judgment dated 25.04.2013 in R.A.No.42/2011) confirmed; no order as to costs; I.A.No.2/2013 disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2013 (SP)

BETWEEN:

K V S PRAKASH S/O K.V.S. GUPTA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RA/T NO.369, 4TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 070.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. T.N. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

KUMARSWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

MASTER RAHUL, S/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. JAYAMMA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

JAGADISH

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

ANAND AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 ARE ALL SONS OF MANEYAIAH

S/O JOGAIAH, RESIDING AT GIRENAHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 112.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE , VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, KIADB, COMPLEX PLOT NO.488/B, 14TH CROSS,

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

3RD BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R9 AND R10; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025;

R1, R4, R6, R8 ARE SERVED; R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1;

VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R3 AND R7 STANDS BATED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 42 RULE 1 R/W SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 25.4.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.4.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.264/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant

challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2013, passed in R.A.No.42/2011 by the learned Presiding Officer,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

Fast Track Court, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District, and the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2011, passed in O.S.No.264/2005 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara.

For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract. It is contended that one Maneyaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,02,000/and accordingly, the sale agreement was executed on 30.11.1995, and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,001/- as an advance sale consideration amount. On the date of

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

execution of the sale agreement it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid within 6 months from the date of the sale agreement, and to get the sale deed executed. Maneyaiah died on 12.02.2000

and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are his legal representatives. It was also agreed that the plaintiff requested the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Despite the plaintiff’s request, the defendants did not execute a registered sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement

denying the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff's and the receipt of Rs.1,001/-. It is contended that the suit property is acquired by KIADB i.e., defendant No.9 and defendant Nos.1 to 7 never agreed to sell the suit schedule property, and it is contended that the suit

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the issues.

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, the

plaintiff was examined as PW.1, 3 witnesses were examined as PW.2 to PW.4, and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. In rebuttal, defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1, and 3 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing the parties and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 to 4 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.04.2011. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.264/2005 preferred an appeal in

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

R.A.No.42/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court,

kanakapura, Ramanagara District.

3.4. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the

learned counsel for the parties, framed the points for consideration.

3.5. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties, and after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, and point No.2 in the negative. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.04.2013.

3.6. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned

judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that both the courts below, have recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale agreement

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

and the Courts ought to have decreed the suit for the specific performance of the contract. She submits that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. Conversely, the defendants were not ready, and willing to perform their part of a contract. She submits that the trial Court has committed an error in answering issue No.2 in the negative. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

Perused the records, and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined

himself as PW.1 and produced the document, i.e., Ex.P1 is the Agreement of Sale dated 30.11.1995, alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. I have perused the contents of PW.1. There is a recital in Ex.P1 stating that the sale is to be concluded within 6 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it is clear that the

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

time is the essence of the contract. The plaintiff has not produced any record to establish that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e., by issuing a notice. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was/is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Furthermore, although time was the essence of the contract, the plaintiff, after the expiry of 6 months, did not file a suit within 3 years from the date of failure to perform his part of the contract, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

I proceed to pass the following:

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26573 RSA No. 1439 of 2013

HC-KAR

ORDER

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed

The judgments and decree passed by the

Courts below, are hereby confirmed.

No order as to the costs.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2013

does not survive for consideration. Accordingly,

disposed of.

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SSB CT: BHK