IN THE', HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7*" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 1-LN. NAOAMORA._1$:;VVOA--LS: ._ 3
R.F.A. No. 353/2633 f;
BETWEEN I
1. 3%-iga-aRAV}'NDRA A
S/O. P DORESWAMY
MAJOR '
R/A.No.39.ss,_7'T*'CROSS} _ _ _
.1 "T STAG-E1 B.%';'NAS}iAN..KAR4I ;. V '
BANOA.LLO%R--R9"7'<3.» 'T
Sri.7--K O 'SHAIVIT-E1ARA--JOE"GOWDA
S/O. 'CHIKKAM'ALI .EOOw"OA
MAJOR, . . "
R;A._No. 13. HFLOOR, HOSUR ROAD
.- » R_ T3.R_.(:. POST,"--DA1__R'{ COLONY
_ ""BA':\TGAL,QRE -- 29.
gs.)
3. 1 'Sn. RCjT;R13TTAsw.AMY GOWDA
as/O,*CseI:I1<1<AMALL13OOw1)A
MAJOR
A' R/A; No. 13,1.IFLOOR,HOSUR ROAD
V "'D.R.C. POST, DAIRY COLONY
*~RANOALORE--29
T"
9%,"
Sri. G MAHIMAIAH
S/O. GURUDAPPA
MAJOR
R/A. NO. 5, an BIKE,
Sri. KRISHNA ROAD
6"' CROSS, 2"" STAGE
BANASHANKARI
BANGALOREM70
Sri. D RANGASWAMY
S/O. DASAP?A
MAJOR _ __
R/A. NO. 2, HOSUR MAjiiN R--f_AOOf ~
CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA7'
SINGASANDRA POST. O A
.BANGALO_RE_~»-68. V" ARRELLANTS
(By Sri. G V SMASH1i§UI:y1AR_,;T--«.AOy:;'_FOR,ARRELLANT NO. 1
Sr}. M N UMESH, AE§y,. FOR APRELLAM Nos. 2 TO 5)
AND :
Smi. RUTTAMMAR'
xgv/O.,N MUNl_NAN'}AP?A
!L_AGR.O ABOU'T'6{}--YEA_RS
VA; K./\NNAMANG-ALA VILLAGE
' B£D'A_RA}!.VAL.LI HOBLE
._ .1g.AN'G'A_1,O,Ri3 SOUTH TALUK
'_BANGALURB
Sri.. \A/"1.BASAVARAJU
~ : ,S/OVJLATE VEERABHADRNAH
AGED ABOUT YEARS 50 YEARS
V R/A. CHANNAKESHAVANAGAR
SINGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE -- 29.
*-..
3-.)
/71
If ./
3. Smt. M CHANNIKAMBIKA
W/O. BASAVARAJU
MAJOR
R/A. CHANNAKESHAVANAGAR
SINGASANDRA
B ANGALORE A 29. RESPONI)'EN'"fS _
(By Sri. M SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R~«I _. --
Sri. M SIDDAGANGAIAH, ADV., FOR R-2 & 3)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTIfOR*'I'
ORDER 41 RULE 1 CPC AGAINST THE EUDGMIENT 'AND?
DECREE DATED 27.11.2002 RASS.E'D..IN O';-S, NO. 8.1 2I'~L9'}5..C)N
THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL I'UDGE»(SR.DN.) 13A-NGALORE
RURAL DIST, BANG-ALQRE, DE.CRE.E'I'NG THEMSAUAIT FOR
RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: _ '
THIS RFA COMING DAY, THE
COURT IQWING;
FRQUDOMENT
._':'4'3?h%S___éI[Ip_e21E iS"("1iE7§E.II!.f3(i against the ju(igmcI1t and decree dated
RV'-R27.:II}2f)();2..4Lin S12/I995 passed by the Principal Civil
Judkggq'}3:1ngziiorrst.5'Rural District, Bangaiorc decrecing the Suit for
'S_pccific per1°jO1*ma11cc Of agreement Of S316.
2. Appellants and respondent No. 2 are defendants
respondent No. l is the plztinti’fl’ before the Trial Cout;t….._l”n.:th-is;
judgment, for convenienc.e., the parties are 1_’el’erred to–‘thei:fAstla’t-us ”
before the Trial Court.
3. Plaint.iff contends that det’et}d’ant No.”-lyis.t_l1e._vlt:ts_band or
defendant No. 2. Defendant Nos..] ‘ 2_ and *ahe?ir”twoCEmino1′
children, entered into an agreement Qfisale’-on”-.l..5.06.I992 agreeing
to sell 2 acres 5 guntas o1″”}–:ntd,iln.L st1r:vey’–tlvE’J’o§r-.102 situated at
Kannamangala Village, Bigetrahnlhli–,Hoh1l., South Taluk
(hereinafteit 1’e_l’errAed».[te_has property’) for a total sale
consideration’ of’ Rs.1;’80,62’5s(-l;”«~.Qnl.the date of agreement of sale
del’e.ndar.;t Nos. E.l2tn’.1t:2′ neknowledgecl the receipt of Rs..l,63,625/–
‘sertd putvdllthe ip’dl:’a1it_1″ltilT_1′._’ in possession o’l:’p1aint’ schedule property in part
t_3ei’f’orrnane”e.» :o£V.:1gr’eve*1’nent of sale. Subsequently there came to be
V V’ ;ntother'”.<1gre__e'nnent between the plztintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2
l..67()6.l9"}3 enhancing the sale consideration by another sum of
lRs."§_7','(}{}{}/m and acknowledged the receipt of enhanced sale
— 1’19–m
eonsicieration. Though the plaintiff has paid the entire,
consideration, the sale deed was not executed due to nc)1t–a.’~sailabi__lity , A’
of clearance from the concerned revenue authorities. ~’..l_’h(>trgh”the
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her.p_a1’t olf’ohligat’ic)nsi, the
defendants went on postponing to executefythe. Salejdeed: f
04.10.1995 the plzlintiff got issued a layVtye.irs_ notiee.”_iACalli.r:gV’tiprdi
defendant Nos. l and 2 to exeeu._te”~.tthe 1’e_t:;i_st.ered’-.1sa~!e”‘cieed.
Defendant Nos. l and 2, though aeilénowledgedi r’eefeipt of
plainti.f1″s lawyers notice, h’aye~.failed to eorn.ply..the dernand made
therein nor sent any reply. The pl.ainti’t’t’,”hav_in?g nevothei’ alternative,
filed O.S.:’;_No., 8li}2r’ilt99Si”agaisrit~—defendant Nos. 1 and 2 only for
decree of specE’if_icltperforinaneey agreement of sale.
p D”e=feii’d.ant Nosihwl and 2, after service of suit summons,
entered appea_raneebefore the Trial Court and filed written statement
inter alia tienyiiioiiig the execution of the agreement of sale dated
i l6.06. 1993, receipt of sale consideration and delivering
y:po.ssess_ii.ion of the schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant
«fit.-
(1
Nos. 1 and 2 further contend that there was a loan trans.:1VCt’i.on~._
between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -1- V
connection they have affixed their signatures to certtlin’ ‘stai§{tpbp211)er_s
by acknowledging receipt of Rs.80,()()f)/;2_l’rorna tthef’eaplhfaiinltiifl” if
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their wt-itten..__staterne_nt furth1erl’s.tjated that
they have sold the schedule property i}1fffl’V’z’t?\g:’:()1a-‘JTV'()f i’i.\’/e under
a registered sale deed dated “th_esel grounds de:t”en(iant
Nos. 1 and 2 opposed the claiin;»et7 piiaintif1?._ _ ‘ V
5. From the §\;u1″i’tr;¢Lyj’i sta=tem§:rtt?the..plaii1ti’ff,ea_1ne to know that
the defend’ant –.Nos.illiaiid”2_lhaye=..so3.d the schedule property and
therefore she filed :1 application to impiead the purchasers
__as partitssli to the” proceedings. The Trial Court allowed the
f’~.iii1.plea1,d_ir1g_V fappliueatvicin filed by the plaintiff and consequently the
purehaseits la1’el_”_iipplzeaded as defendant Nos. 3 to 7. The additional
det’endant l’~3os.”?§ to 7 filed separate written statement inter alia
“:CCIi1E’CF1Cl.lI}g that the agreement of sale relied on by the plaintiff as
._f_alse andplaii1tif”t’ is not in possession of the schedule property. The
/”7′
5 /’
defendant Nos. 3
purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of ttgr};e’1neht—-t)f”
sate in favour of the piaintiff.
6. On the basis of pieadings, thev.’Trial”Ctrttrt-I
foilowing 8 issues for its consideration.
I.
11.
iv.
Whether the plaintiff pfts~.:§sthat defenda-nits and 2
executed an agreernent_«dateti to sell
the suit schedule ‘Tpr_0pe”rty’b fer_h’es-‘j’V*cQnsi.cleration of
Rs. ,s0,’ej2,y.f/–?
Wlzetheirythe’p1aé’ntiff_p’r0’ves that she paid advance of
Rs4.1;63,(5’25/iron the same day and further advance of
eA.Rs.17;'(}(1_V()V/eon 36.06.1993′?
bh :Whe’t–he.r the plaintiff was put in p().$S€3SSi()1} of the
«t5r*<Jpe~t;"E'yV.t)n the date of the agreement'?
Whether the plaintiff proves that she was always ready
and wiliing to per_f0rm her part of the contract'?
to 7 further contend that they are bt).nt1t'i7iude~.t_
property was mid to one R. RavindrzéV_in','''' ;. '
Shantharaja Gowda, KC. Puttaswamy"fidwdai, G,
Mahirnaiah and D. Rangaswamy under re_gis.tered'dee_d :3 A
dated 07.05. I995?
vi. Whether the plaintiff is for ‘dcctV~§§e_’:t>r i§peeii’ic
perforniance oft ‘;tgree1ng;h ._ « . M _
VII. Whethenthe decree for
VIII. H ‘ I i i V
7. ‘t3_ei’t)_:’e the plaintiff examined three
witnesses as it to marked Ex.P.l to Ex.P.tl 8. The
_defendztritsuexainineki–one witness as D.W.I and got marked Ex.D..I.
Lto _Th.e T4r’i’a.IV Court, after hearing arguments on both the side
and by..;:onVSide:.tingthe pleadings, orai and documentary evidence.
passed the i1″t1pu’_gii€d judgment decreeing the suit of the plain.ti.fE’ and
V directed. the Vdei”endant.s to execute a registered sale deed in favour of
“p.iai’n’tii;’t’. Hence, this appeal by the defendants
//”
Whether the defendants prove that the suit
9
8. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the
appeal papers.
9. P.W.l is the husband of pla’intit’if..rrP.»W’.l ‘h.is.:i§;§yidene’eV
deposed that he was involved in the negotia”tion:5′”with deI’e’ndiantiNc;.tp if
1 when they entered into an agreem’e_nt—of
also the subsequent agreeme__nt the
agreement of sale dated E6.()i6′;’1xi’.,5§9.3 Nos. 1
and 2 and their two n”t_ino_r ehiJdi’e’u~ the schedule
property to”e,_the–_ pl:1,i1i1itiitI’.'{‘;w- _Ti:i»s”agreement specifies the existence of
eariier agreem’ent”dVated_ i4ii.t5.(}6i.i-992, the receipt of entire sale
_eonsideraitione’.and 2tl’scsi..dei.iveri11g possession of the piaint seheduie
Aip_t'()pt:3i{y_VE(; tl1e«.p}a.iri–tiff. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their written
stattetnenti’contended;that they have not executed the agreement of
sale dated ‘h5!.(}t3i..il992 and 16.06.1993. On the other hand the
__i”d’efendany_t Nos. 1 and 2 contend that they borrowed a Eoan of
–R”s;.§§t;{.(i)i()i(A)A/M from the plaintiff and in that cormeetion affixed their
/74
If
it ./
I0
signature on some blank stamp papers and handed over the sa{ne_ito_
the plztintift’. In support of this defence taken by det’endz1iit”‘No.é,{V;~_i’ » it
and 2 in their written statement they have not stepped”-intofthe i
witness box. A pleading not supported by e-v’i’de–n.ce liabiletto ibef,
rejected. So also, any evidence without there being’ple21dii:1g;~is” liable.’ T6 ‘
to be discarded. In the instant case, thee’d-e.t’endairtV_Nos. I
not stepped into the witness box and haiVe_in0t proivedltihe defence
taken by them in their written sta_t”emert’t. T}1ei”de:i’endant Nos. 1 and 2- .
have not denied their signature oi1t.iExi.P;iiB7_1t;’–tAhey «contend that
they have signed so’i.ne«..bl’_anl< pa_piersf~.iVn. respe.c.t of a loan
transaction. But, the _t)le'2e-hf'defendant 'Nest and 2 is not proved by
placing any evid<:t_1_ce onij::Co'rd." Trial Court by considering this
d.t)curnenta5§y and oi'al'iev.idenceV on record rightly con.cl.ude.d that the
p'ltainti.:i'i'–.h'a:':_V pi'.oved~-.the execution of agreement of sale dated
I find no _§usti.fiab|e grourtrl to interfere
with this i"indi"nAg tifthe Trial Court.
Ki
10. Learned counsel for the defendants contend, that
in his evidence deposed that he is the power of atterney li’i3r of plztilriiifi’. But the suit is filed only agaisilt defendant Nos.
land 2 and minor ehiidren are not made parties. In the absenee..of..’_ii~.t_
two contracting parties to the agreement of sale the suit is ?–i§i1bie” *’
be dismissed. Again I decline to accept this contention of”the’–1e_arned ” _
eounsei for the defendants. Both in Ex.P.i —-3the;’a,greeinent~oif
and also in the registered sale deed in faiiourtot’ thedei’endantsVw.as«–vper
Ex.D.1 it is clearly stated that the sehedalieV’:pr§)t>ei’ty
in favour of one Kaiyanamma –i the:rnotinerfioi%defendian,t_No. .1 under
re–grant order dated i4$:;~12.l98-.i”‘ of Enams
Aboiition Act. A1’te-r§”th_e No.1
being the on1y..S.on””i1a::§– schedule property.
Thisadmitted’..evider1ee”‘i’;i’:’E’XL?.l”t~and..Ex.;D.1 clearly establishes the
fact that in the agreementi.ot'”the”w’it’e and children of defendant
No.1 have joined oartief; 1-‘or conveying better title in favour of
pi’z1inti1’f’.._”{n:. r:_irct1in.é’tan.e_esi it cannot be said that the minor
ehi_idi’en*of dei”end-ant~–.Nos.l and 2. are having independent right in
the piiaiiitieeiietiiijilenproperty. The l10l1~i1’lCiU$iO1’l of the minor chiidren
i”~’who are parties. to’i’E§.x.P.i A the agreement of sale is not fatal to the
~ jVe’ay.e’-»o!’ ;)1aii1ti1″if.i1’If’ for any reason, the minor ehiidren are having any
//,3
/
9′
f .
right. they will work out their remedy in accordance with law,-.__
Merely because the minor children of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, z1re”.not.i”–_
made as parties to the proceedings, cannot be a ground to dis;.niise; the’
suit.
12. Learned eotmse! for the del’endants:”eont’e1idthatiit :3 ‘
–~ the agi’ee1nent of :-_:ale dated 16.06. l.99_3″*there is”-I-1Vrefe1’eijee{to..the
earlier agreement of sale dated l_5.06.l99_2. further’ stated iniithat
under the agreement of sale dated’lli5.–{)6i’; of schedule
property was delivered .favoLf:’riiiol”the plaintiff
not produced—_the hale dated l5.06.!992 and
therefore the plaintiff has it’:tiI’e.d:}to prove that she. was put in
vposésessionioil’ the plainrteehedule property. In the plallftt plaintiff
sipec.it’iiett~llVy .pleaded”‘*.t_hztt on the date of Ex.P.l — the earlier
ag1’ee:’ne.n*t.rol’ .§al:§f’wa’$: destroyed. To this effect P.W. !. deposed in his
evidence.ifixeeptha suggestion in the eross~examination of P.W.l_,
._Tniitl1Ving.;Iti§ elicited to dishelieve the explanation offered by the
pli;i.in’til’ti.i Eveai the szuggestion put to P.W.l is; denied. In the%
><-._,
/:9'
f…-'
14
agreement of sale M Ex.P.l it is specifically stated that the plaintiff
was put in possession in the year 1992 and she can continue in
possession and enjoyment of the same. Further it is seen front
record that subsequent to 1992 the name of plaintiff :_.
entered in the RTC extract for the years l’)92¢93_to _
Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. Ex.P.t’) is the mutation regi.ste;’_’e;~;€raeit.._E’xri3′.9i ‘
Ex.P.l8 are the photographs and thei.1’iine;gatives§”This.doe_uriie’ntary
evidence on record establishesnthe fact. :”tl1at”».the plai.nti_ff is in
possession and enjoyment of the ‘isChedulfe }gro’pefrtyil from the year
1992. Learned counsel.::for_ the RTC
extract is created doeurrient.p4in»,eo1lusion with the revenue authorities
and therefore iiorelianee.cai11_be.._ipiaced on it. It is seen from the
:_.~r’ec.._o_rd i’roi1h”‘the____y_eai’ 1992-93 the name oil’ plaintiff finds
ahplaeein. i2 of the RTC, the same is not questioned
‘ seitherhh)f’deFei1da.nt.i5Nos. 1. and 2 or the other defendants. in the
°~._.ciretin1stanc.es’the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is in
4._possessio’1~i.o’l’ schedule property in part perforrnance of agreement of
?§~.jf–‘-i’
.”‘:
i
sale is supported by evidence and the same is in accordance with
law.
13. Learned counset for the defendants contend that after
purchased the schedule property the defendant Nos. 1 –‘-‘ V
interfere with their possession and enjoyment of.”th’e*– is_ehie’du1′<':_
property and the:'efoi*e they filed a civil suit'—.in
decree of pernianent injunction E1I1d'ii1.('}~._$£llT1€A'£'8iT:C toiV:hes{dve.t;jreed
vide judgment dated ?,5.07.'l997 as 'i"ihe.Tria1J?Court
faited to consider this documented'. is not a party
to the civiilsuit in.O'iSf'-No._724/"1*99'5"and as such the same is not
binding on her.s._Fiu:"_the'i'_itiis" that in o.s. No. 724/1995 the
;jet'endarits though ih1"iIl'~l."i_'WI"'!'l..[€3l1 statement before the Trial Court
i't7aiiedi"tOj c–ont.est._ithe__ matter. Thus there came to be an exparte
V judgmeniti in 'i'a§yotiAi:=ioi' the defend:-ints in 0.8. No. 724/1995. The
Triai Courfifighitiy refused to take into consideration the judgment
and iii o.s. No. 724/1995.
may be illegal but on the date defendant Nos. 3 to 7 purchased the
schedule property under Ex.D.l the name of plaintifl’ do find a
in column No. 12 of RTC extract showing that she is in pr:::ssessiofr’1– ‘7’
of the piaint schedule property. Admittedly __tl1e ydefendants..
the RTC extracts before they purchased the s’::hed_uie”property’; T6 ‘
the defendants are aware of the fact tha.t”13.l.aintifl’-is in po;-tses;:s’ior1..0:~”
schedule property. The defendants tho11gh’v.had_V the ‘l<;'no.wleVd§e of
earlier agreement with the plaintiffipurch_ai§.ei.l tlietiV$::he.*dule property.
15. P.W.l in h’is__evideriee’deposed has dug a
borewell, cc:~_nstructed”._a reVsidential._hous_e., improved the land and is
growing crops’..__This orall P.W.l is supported by the
mutation extract W the’RTC extracts Ex.P.8 and Elx.P.9 and
as Ex.P.lU to Ex.’P.l8. Again except
sugigeystrionrin tired ero’sv;.siexarn.ination of P.W.l that photographs are
trot relating to .[i’t@””‘SuiE. property nothing more is elicited. The Trial
‘”*.C=ourt. on earefut appreciation of the entire material on record
_co_nc’!_uded” that defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are not bonafide purchasers
–..J
/F’
, ,
,2 If
1 2
‘xx
wi£h0u£ notice of the agreement of sale in fzw0u1′ of piaiiniff. Thi_s:’–.__
finding of the Triai Court is supported by cvidcnce on 1iec0i’c1«..:£nd”Edi.
find no reason to differ wiih the saimz.
16. For the reasons staked above, gih'<¥i*appe:{11 "ii'i:sé1'eby._:'«.
dismissed with no 0i'de.r as to costs. V _ .
LRS/081220}(}.