S Rajanna Vs Giddabovi Since Deceased by His Lrs R2 to R7

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 24.10.2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO.82/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.09.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.141/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SIRA.

¶46

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL OF APPLICATIONS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37972 RSA No. 1884 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

This appeal is filed against a divergent finding in a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court.

¶52

The suit for specific performance is filed to enforce the agreement for Sale dated 28.12.1992. The plaintiff claims that defendant agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.7,500/- and plaintiff claims to have paid the full sale consideration amount of Rs.7,500/- on the date of agreement itself.

¶53

The property covered under the agreement is Sy.No.78 of Borasandra Village, Sira Taluk measuring 5 acres (excluding 0.10 guntas kharab).

¶54

The defendant filed written statement and denied the execution of the agreement for sale. The defendant

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37972 RSA No. 1884 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

also denied that he has received Rs.7,500/- towards sale consideration amount and also denied the delivery of possession as claimed by the plaintiff.

¶58

The defendant also took a contention that the suit is barred by limitation as the time was fixed for the enforcement of agreement was only 3 years. The trail Court came to the conclusion that agreement is proved and the trial Court also held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

¶59

As far as the contention relating to limitation, the trial Court held that the suit is in time on the premise that the suit is filed within 3 years from the date fixed in the agreement and accordingly, the trial Court granted a decree for specific performance of the contract. The trial Court has also held that under the agreement for sale, there was no time fixed for performance of the contract as such, the suit is in time.

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:37972 RSA No. 1884 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

First Appellate Court, on an appeal filed by the defendant has reversed the finding holding that the agreement is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'Act of 1978').

¶64

The records would reveal that the property in question was granted to father of the defendant and it is an admitted fact that the defendant belongs to Scheduled Caste. There was no permission granted by the Competent Authority to sell the suit schedule property. First Appellate Court has relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶65

SRI.VENKATANARAYANAPPA VS SRI. SIDDAPPA¹ , to conclude that the agreement is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978. By referring to the said judgment, First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the agreement to sell without the previous permission of the

¶66

1 2007(3) KCCR 1577

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37972 RSA No. 1884 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Government is impermissible and accordingly, held that agreement is unenforceable.

¶70

Since the plaintiff claims to have taken possession of the property under the agreement to sell, the transfer is not permissible and the agreement is hit under the provisions of the Act of 1978.

¶71

It is also relevant to notice that, there is a delay of 1769 days in filing the appeal. As already noticed that the suit is one for specific performance of the contract, the suit was initially decreed, the appeal was allowed and the suit was later dismissed declining the relief of specific performance however, the decree is passed for refund of the consideration amount. The delay of 1769 days in filing the appeal also comes in the way of accepting the plaintiff's claim relating to the readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

¶72

This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of First Appellate Court. No substantial

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:37972 RSA No. 1884 of 2013

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

question of law would arise and accordingly, the appeal is

¶77

dismissed .

¶78

Since there is a decree for refund of the amount passed by First Appellate Court and said decree was not questioned by the plaintiff, the decree for refund of amount of Rs.7,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by First Appellate Court is not disturbed.

¶79

The respondents shall pay the said amount

¶80

within thirty days from today.

¶81

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶82

PHM

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

S Rajanna v. Giddabovi Since Deceased by His Lrs R2 to R7

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Rajanna v. Giddabovi Since Deceased by His Lrs R2 to R7

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri.Hemantha Prabhu Vs Sri.Srinivasa Rao

Nekara Kuruhina Setty Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs Sri. Thammaiah

Mr. Mujahid Pasha Vs Mrs. Farzana Tabassum

G.C. Nagareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Kempanna Vs Smt.Nagamma

K N Eshwarappa Vs Rajappa