Sri T S S Ramachandra Murty Vs Sri Naren Kumar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri T S S Ramachandra Murty Vs Sri Naren Kumar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Decree under appeal set aside; matter remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh under Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; appellant directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m.; appeal disposed of subject thereto; liberty left to the appellant to move permissible applications before the trial Court; parties to cooperate without unnecessary adjournments.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff (appellant) was entitled to specific performance of the contract dated 24.04.2005, the relief sought in the suit. +4 more

Court's answer

Perusal of the sale agreement (Ex.P.1) shows that execution of the sale deed was contingent upon certain other terms mentioned above the description of the schedule property.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court's finding rejecting specific performance of contract and directing refund of advance sale consideration (to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest) is based on misreading of the evidence and pleadings and non-application of mind.

Key takeaways

Neither were the issues properly framed nor were the pleadings and evidence duly considered by the trial Court; this has led to failure of justice.ratio¶14
The issues framed by the trial Court are vague and not specific to a suit for specific performance.ratio¶10
The case is a fit case for remand under Order 41 Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (two-Judge Bench: Jayant Banerji and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; oral judgment per Jayant Banerji, J.), Regular First Appeal No. 1629 of 2012 (SP) under S.96 CPC, decided 14.01.2026 — Suit by T.S.S. Ramachandra Murty (plaintiff/appellant) against Naren Kumar (Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1) and two others for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.04.2005 (consideration Rs.17,85,000/-). Advances aggregating Rs.14,85,000/- were acknowledged by the Defendant through endorsements dated 09.07.2005 (Rs.3,00,000/-) and 24.10.2005 (Rs.7,00,000/-); repeated letters (09.08.2006, 18.08.2006, 26.08.2006) and legal notices dated 11.09.2006 (returned unserved) and 28.09.2006 went unheeded; written statement dated 14.03.2008. By judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 in O.S.No.2684/2006 (Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District), specific performance was rejected and Defendant No.1 was ordered to refund Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. The plaintiff was examined in chief (affidavit and orally on 20.09.2011); Defendant No.1 never appeared for cross-examination and his deposition was “expunged” by trial Court order dated 04.06.2012. Holding that the trial Court's finding rested on misreading of evidence and pleadings and non-application of mind, that the framed issues were vague and not specific to a suit for specific performance, and that pleadings/evidence were not duly considered, causing failure of justice — and noting that Ex.P.1 showed execution of the sale deed was contingent on further terms — the Court found a fit case for remand under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC 1908, set aside the decree and remanded for decision afresh, directing the appellant to appear before the trial Court on 17.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m., leaving him liberty to move permissible applications and requiring the parties to cooperate without unnecessary adjournments; the appeal was disposed of subject thereto. The substantive entitlement to specific performance was expressly left undecided, to be determined on remand. No precedent was cited or engaged.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 in O.S.No.2684/2006 partly decreeing the suit: relief of specific performance of the contract dated 24.04.2005 was rejected and Defendant No.1 was directed to refund advance sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.¶front-matter
Presiding Officer, FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore · 2012-07-31
Prior proceeding
Agreement to sell dated 24.04.2005 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; sale consideration fixed at Rs.17,85,000/-; advance sale consideration of Rs.4,85,000/- paid by the plaintiff and acknowledged by the defendant.¶5
Prior proceeding
First endorsement/amendment dated 09.07.2005 made by the defendant on the agreement to sell, acknowledging receipt of a further Rs.3,00,000/-; balance payable on execution and registration of the sale deed.¶5
Prior proceeding
Second endorsement/amendment dated 24.10.2005 acknowledging receipt of a further Rs.7,00,000/- (aggregate Rs.14,85,000/- received), balance of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid at execution and registration.¶6
Prior proceeding
Repeated letters issued by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding completion of the sale transaction, without result.¶6
Prior proceeding
Registered legal notice dated 11.09.2006 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant; returned with the endorsement that the party is not in station.¶7
Prior proceeding
Fresh legal notice dated 28.09.2006 issued by registered post; the defendant failed and neglected to comply with the demand; thereupon the suit was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.¶7
Prior proceeding
Written statement dated 14.03.2008 filed by the defendant: advance of Rs.4,85,000/- acknowledged; first endorsement (Rs.3,00,000/-) and second endorsement (Rs.7,00,000/-) not specifically denied, but contended that only Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by cheque and Rs.5,50,000/- payable in cash on the next day of the endorsement was not paid.¶8
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff examined himself by affidavit (examination-in-chief iterating the plaint case) and orally on 20.09.2011; cross-examined by counsel for Defendant No.1; suggestions that only Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid by cheque towards the Rs.7,00,000/- (balance agreed for a later date) were denied.¶10
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 (DW-1) tendered affidavit evidence reiterating his written statement, admitting Rs.4,85,000/- advance and Rs.1,50,000/- by cheque and asserting non-payment of Rs.5,50,000/- in cash; he never appeared for cross-examination and his examination-in-chief was “expunged” by order of the trial Court dated 04.06.2012.¶12
Prior proceeding
By order dated 12.09.2014 (v/o), notice to Respondents No.2 and 3 dispensed with.¶front-matter