Sri Kemparaju Vs Sri M R Rajath — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Kemparaju Vs Sri M R Rajath — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Executing Court's order dismissing the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 CPC stands upheld.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor for rescission of the contract dated 13.06.2012 deserved to be allowed on the ground that the decree holder did not pay the balance sale consideration within three months, when the decree fixed no time limit for payment by the decree holder. +2 more

Court's answer

The decree dated 15.10.2022 directed the judgment debtors to execute the sale deed within three months after receiving the balance sale consideration and fixed no time limit for the decree holder to make payment; consequently, in the absence of any time limit for payment, the question of the decree holder seeking extension of time would not arise.

Ratio / Principle

The decree holder waited a reasonable time, filed execution on 07.01.2023 and deposited the balance sale consideration with the Court's permission; the judgment debtor raised no plea of rescission in his objections and moved under Section 28 only belatedly on 30.11.2024, so the Executing Court rightly rejected the rescission application.

Key takeaways

Balbir Singh (MANU/SC/0079/2025) has no application to the present case: there the balance amount was neither deposited as per the decree nor was any extension of time sought, whereas here there is no time stipulation for deposit of the amount by the decree holder.ratio¶¶89
As per P. Shyamala (MANU/SC/0164/2023), the Court which passes the decree retains the power of extension of time and also recession of contract, and the power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary, to be exercised as the justice of the case requires.ratio¶¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the judgment debtor against the order dated 10.06.2025 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur in Ex.P.No.06/2023 dismissing his application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC for rescission of the agreement of sale dated 13.06.2012. The decree in O.S.No.48/2020 dated 15.10.2022 directed the defendants to execute the registered sale deed within three months 'after receiving the balance sale consideration', but fixed no time limit for the decree holder to pay the balance consideration. The decree holder filed execution on 07.01.2023, sought leave by memo dated 30.09.2023 to deposit Rs.3,01,875/-, was permitted by order dated 10.06.2025 and deposited the amount on 26.06.2025; the judgment debtor's Section 28 application was filed only on 30.11.2024. Held: Balbir Singh (MANU/SC/0079/2025) distinguished, since there the balance was neither deposited nor extension of time sought; following Ishwar (Civil Appeal No.10193 of 2024), the absence of any time stipulation for payment meant no question of extension of time arose, and the belated rescission application was rightly rejected. Writ petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20088/2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KEMPARAJU SON OF SRI. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. KANAKENAHALLI VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 204.

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV.,)

…PETITIONER

AND:

SRI. M.R. RAJATH SON OF LATE M.R. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT. NO.43, 5TH CROSS R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 080.

ALSO AT :

KANAKENAHALLI VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 204.

SMT. KAMALAMMA WIFE OF LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

SRI. BASAVARAJU

SINCE DEAD BY LR'S ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETIONER AND R3 HEREIN.

SRI. MALLARAJU SON OF BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

SRI. UMASHANKAR SON OF LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

SMT. RATNAMMA WIFE OF UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

MISS. MEGHA D/O UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

MISS. NANDHINI D/O UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

MISS. BHOOMIKA D/O UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 9 ALL ARE R/AT. KANAKENAHALLI VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 204.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.T. NATARAJ, ADV., FOR R1 R2 TO R8 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DTD:14.07.2025)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ILLEGAL AND ERRONEOUS ORDER DATED 10/06/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.06 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC AND RESCIND/CANCEL THE CONTRACT DATED 13/06/2012 (ANNEXURE-O AND ANNEXURE-B) & ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 passed on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in Ex.P.No.6/2023 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner-judgment debtor along with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.1-decree holder entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.06.2012. The

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

respondent No.1-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement in O.S.No.48/2020 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'). The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2022 ordering the petitioner-judgment debtor to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the respondent No.1-decree holder after receiving the balance sale consideration, within a period of three months.

The respondent No.1-decree holder filed an

execution petition in Ex.P.No.06/2023 before the Executing Court seeking to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.48/2020. In the said execution petition, the petitioner-judgment debtor filed an application under Section 28 of the Act, seeking to rescind the contract as the respondent No.1-decree holder did not make payment of the balance sale consideration within the period of three months as directed in the decree. The Executing Court,

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

after considering the application dismissed the same. The petitioner-judgment debtor, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for recession of the contract has filed this petition.

Sri.Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits that the Trial Court failed to take note of the mandatory nature of the directions contained in the decree that mandated the respondent No.1-decree holder to make payment of the balance sale consideration within a period of three months. It is submitted that the respondent No.1-decree holder has failed to seek extension of time to make payment of the balance consideration and therefore, in view of the default of the respondent No.1-decree holder in making the payment, the application is sought to be allowed. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1-decree holder has filed a memo in Ex.P.No.06/2023 seeking to deposit the balance sale consideration but the said memo was filed after nearly a year of passing of the decree which is

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

beyond the mandatory time limit of three months in the decree. It is also submitted that the Executing Court has erroneously allowed the memo by permitting the respondent No.1-decree holder to deposit the amount and the balance sale consideration has been deposited after a

period of over two and a half year, which is beyond the scope of the time limit directed in the decree. In support of his contentions, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BALBIR SINGH

AND OTHERS Vs BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS¹ , P.SHYAMALA Vs. GUNDLUR MASTHAN² and SANGITA SINHA Vs. BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS³ . Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and consequently allow the application filed under Section 28 of the Act, for recession of contract.

Per contra , Sri.H.T.Nataraj, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1-decree holder supports

1 MANU/SC/0079/2025

2 MANU/SC/0164/2023

3 MANU/SC/0449/2025

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

the order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application after considering the material on record. It is submitted that the Trial Court has rightly held that there is no direction in the decree fixing a time limit on the respondent No.1-decree holder to make payment of the balance sale consideration within a stipulated time. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has also taken note of the memo dated 30.09.2023 filed before the Executing Court seeking to deposit the balance sale consideration, which has subsequently been allowed and the balance sale consideration has now been deposited before the Executing Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ISHWAR SINCE

DECEASED TRHOUGH LRs. Vs. BHIM SINGH AND

ANOTHER⁴ . Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor, the learned

4 Civil Appeal No.10193 of 2024 dtd 03.09.2024

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

counsel for the respondent No.1-decree holder and meticulously perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner-judgment debtor along with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.1-decree holder entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.06.2012 for the sale of the properties bearing Sy.No.5/4 measuring 13 guntas, Sy No.5/5 measuring 19 guntas, Sy.No.5/11 measuring 9 guntas, Sy.No.5/13 measuring 10 guntas and Sy.No.5/17 measuring 16 guntas. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement in O.S.No.48/2020. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2022. The order reads as under:

"The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. No order as to costs.

The defendants are hereby directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration, within

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

three months from the date of this order. On failure to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the above decree in accordance with law."

The records indicate that on 07.01.2023 the plaintiff-decree holder filed an execution petition which was registered as Ex.P.No.6/2023. In the said execution petition, the respondent No.1-decree holder filed a memo on 30.09.2023 seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,01,875/-. The Executing Court allowed the memo and ordered to deposit the amount vide order dated 10.06.2025. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.1-decree holder has deposited the balance sale consideration on 26.06.2025. It is to be noticed that the petitioner-judgment debtor has filed an objection in the execution proceedings on 06.01.2024. A perusal of the statement of objections filed by the petitionerjudgment debtor indicates that the petitioner-judgment debtor has filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking restoration of the original

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

suit by setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree

and the said proceedings are pending. The objections further indicate that the petitioner-judgment debtor has revoked the agreement of sale by issuing a notice dated 05.05.2024 to the respondent No.1-decree holder, which is prior to the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.48/2020 and by suppression of the said revocation, the suit was filed which was decreed.

It is to be noticed that the judgment indicates that the notice in the suit was served on the defendants but they remained absent and hence, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit. The petitioner-judgment debtor has not raised any contention in his objection filed before the Execution Court with regard to rescinding the contract and the application under Section 28 of the Act for rescinding the contract is only filed on 30.11.2024. Furthermore, a perusal of the judgment and decree clearly indicates that the directions of the Trial Court is to the petitioner-judgment debtor to execute the sale deed within

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

three months after receiving the balance sale

consideration. There is no time limit fixed for the respondent No.1-decree-holder to make payment of the balance sale consideration within a stipulated time. The records indicate that the respondent No.1-decree-holder has waited for a reasonable time and filed the execution petition on 07.01.2023 and thereafter, with the permission of the Court, the balance sale consideration was deposited. It is to be noticed that in the absence of any time limit for making the payment of balance sale consideration, the question of the respondent No.1-decree holder seeking the extension of time would not arise.

The decision in the case of BALBIR SINGH

AND OTHERS referred supra has no application to the case on hand. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the finding that the balance amount was neither deposited as per the decree nor any extension of time was sought. However, in the case on hand, there is

no time stipulation for deposit of the amount by the

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

respondent No.1-decree holder. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in the case of P.SHYAMALA referred supra, held that the Court which passes the decree retains the power of extension of time and also recession of contract and the power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice of the case may require.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

ISHWAR referred supra, at paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 has held as under:

" 27. In the instant case, the agreement, of which specific performance was sought, is of the year 2005. The suit for specific performance was filed in the year 2006. The trial court partly decreed the suit, inter alia, for refund of the earnest money in the year 2011. The plaintiff(s) (respondents herein) being aggrieved by rejection of their prayer for specific performance of the agreement, filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court allowed the appeal on 12.1.2012 and directed the defendants (appellants herein) to execute the sale deed on payment of balance consideration

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

within two months from the date of the appellate court order, failing which the plaintiff(s) were entitled to get the sale deed executed through Court. Notably, the mode of payment of the balance consideration was not specified in the decree and there was no direction upon the plaintiff(s) to deposit the balance consideration in Court. Further, the decree did not spell out consequences of nonpayment within the stipulated period. Rather, right was given to the decree holder to get the sale deed executed through Court if it was not executed upon payment within two months. As the mode of payment was not specified in the decree, what course the decree holder could have adopted in case the judgment-debtor refused to abide by the decree becomes a relevant consideration for the purposes of exercise of discretion in one way or the other.

28. In the instant case, admittedly, the decree attained finality upon dismissal of second appeal on 7.11.2013, and, finally, SLP on 7.11.2016. In between, pursuant to the order of the Execution Court dated 3.11.2016, as claimed by the respondents in their written submission, the balance sale consideration was deposited on 13.11.2016. Before that, the decree-holder(s) had promptly filed for execution of the decree immediately after expiry of 60 days from the date of the appellate court

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

decree. Not only that, as no specific mode for payment/deposit of the balance consideration was provided for in the decree, the decree holder(s) sought a direction from the Court to permit them to deposit the amount in Court so as to get the decree executed through its intervention. This application, however, remained pending as challenge to the decree was being considered by higher courts. In the meantime, as soon as the Second Appeal was dismissed, the decree-holder(s) applied for fresh permission to deposit the balance consideration. Ultimately, when permission was granted by the Execution Court, the deposit was made, as noted above. In these circumstances, the decree holder(s) had all throughout displayed their intention to pay the balance consideration and there appears no intentional or deliberate fault on their part so as to deprive them of the fruits of the decree.

29. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) that there was no proper prayer for condonation of delay in making the deposit of the balance consideration, or that there was no proper application for extension of time to make deposit, is unworthy of acceptance. Because, in the execution application itself, which was promptly filed after expiry of 60 days from the date of the appellate court decree, the decree holder had sought

15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

permission to make deposit. Not only that, the application filed after dismissal of second appeal also sought permission to make deposit. The prayer to extend the time to make deposit was therefore implicit in the prayer to permit the decree holder to make deposit of the balance consideration. In this view of the matter, we reject the submission of the appellants that as there was no proper application for extension of time to make deposit, the Court held no jurisdiction to extend the same.

30. In light of the discussion above and on an overall assessment of the facts, we are of the considered view that the respondents had all throughout shown their intention to pay the balance consideration for execution of the sale deed whereas the appellants appeared interested only in challenging the decree before higher Courts. In these circumstances, taking note of all the events, the Execution Court justifiably exercised its discretion in favour of the decree-holder(s) by allowing them to deposit the balance consideration. In our view, therefore, substantial justice has been done to the parties and if we interfere with the impugned order only on the technical ground that the application was not dealt with as one on the original side, grave injustice would be caused to the decree holder(s). More so, when the judgment-debtor(s) themselves

16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

applied to the Execution Court for rescinding the contract under Section 28(1) of the 1963 Act, and raised no such jurisdictional issue either before the Execution Court or the High Court. Therefore, in our view, no interference with the impugned order is called for in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution."

Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the judgment and decree was passed on 15.10.2022 directing the petitioner-judgment debtor to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale consideration within three months failing which the respondent No.1-decree holder could get it executed through the Court. However, the Trial Court has not fixed any time limit in the decree for payment of the balance sale consideration by the respondent No.1-decree holder. Further, the decree is silent with regard to the consequences of non-payment within the stipulated period, rather it confers the right on the respondent No.1decree-holder to get the sale deed executed from the

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

Court, if it was not executed within the stipulated time. It

is to be noticed that the respondent No.1-decree holder, after the stipulated time is over has filed the execution petition seeking permission of the Court to deposit balance sale consideration, which was granted. The petitionerjudgment debtor, though filed objection to the execution petition has not stated anything with regard to the intention of seeking recession of contract but after a substantial period of time, files an application for recession of contract, which was rightly rejected by the Executing Court. The Executing Court, taking note of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the material on record, by a well reasoned order, rejected the application filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor under Section 28 of the Act. In my view, the same is in consonance with law and facts and does not call for any interference.

18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4655 W.P. No.20088/2025

HC-KAR

I do not find any error in the finding recorded

by the Executing Court calling for any interference in this petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

RV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1