{"id":210922,"date":"2009-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-11T10:39:01","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T05:09:01","slug":"kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana<\/div>\n
III THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \n\nmm!) nus ma 673 our or mncn  ~ \n\nBEFORE\n\nms HOIPBLE mt JUSTICE x N   \n\nR.S.A. No. 245_oF \nBETWEEN: % 'V\n\n31119 K31Y31\"1i P00ja1'thY=;_  _ _ \"  \nW\/0. Krishna Poojarthy,\"<Major,  } ' '\nAgriculturist, Residing in  \nUdyavar Village, Post: LIdy'aV'a1",.'  -  "\nUduPiDisu'ict.;" %  u  3:   \n\n(By Sri.  Senior Advocate)\nA N D:  ' ' ' '  ._  V     \n1. Sri. P; '  \nS\/o. Vama_Vn-NVayak,, Major,\nBank Qf\ufb01ceg Residing in\n\n V.  K;ai?apa'd.iv%_of Y\u00e9iiaumgddc Village,\n  \n\n   n  --- 400 013.\n\n' so.  Acharya,\nMajoxf, Residing in Pankaj Mansion,\n7'33 ~~}?'l0a9r, Worlie, Naka,\n\n. . . .RESPONDEN'l"S\n\n    Devi Prasad Shetty, Advocate for R~\u00ab1\n\n~  "Sri. Nabaraj Banal, Advocate for Kishonc Shctty,\n" Advecate for C\/R42) \n\n\n\n2\n\nThis R.S.A. is \ufb01led under Section 100 of C.P.C.\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2903\npassed in RA. No.11 of 2001 on the \ufb01le of the District\n\nJudge, Udupi, dismissing the appeal and eon\ufb01rmirigthe\njudgment and decree dated 22.04.1995  ' \nNo.30 of 1984 on the \ufb01le of the Civil Judge.A4"('S1f.,j)11;},_ \n\nUdupi. _ .\n\nThis R.S.A. comm' g on for i \n\nday, the Court delivered the followljngz\ufb01 "\n\nJUne\u00a3eNeea A\n\nThis Second Appeal: '   agm 'n"st the\nconcurrent judgments    decreeing\n\nthe  Of? A'  plaintiffs for speci\ufb01c\n\nperformaI 1ce'of  The appellant is the\n\nsole deiendani  as. so gr 1934 on the \ufb01le of the Civil\n\n Udupi. Respondents \u00bb-\u00bb 1 and 2 are the\n\n suit.\n\n2) "  -- I and 2 \ufb01led the said suit against\n\n'    defendant for the following re1iefs:-\n\n'   A decree directing the defendant speci\ufb01cally\n\nto perform the ageement claim 18.05.1982\n\n'Eg\/4\n\n\n\nand to do all acts to put the second plainti\ufb02' \n\nin full possession of the immovable  -. V.\nfully described in schedule 'A; or in ravoiif 013    V\nsuch of the plaintiffs as    V' \nentitled by executing at the  .'\nsecond plaintiffs   Vsale  V '\nconveying the plaint    \n\nabsolutely to the 2nd p1aix1tViifi'.by..;feos5ivingAt11s\nbalance price of RsL53,e35o%,*o default\nby defendant to     a\ndecree fox ssocu\ufb01\u00e9on   deed by\nCourt     or such of\nthe _\u00a7_1su  entitled as\n" Rules 32 and 34 of\nthe""Ci\u00a71il  1908.\n\n   \ufb01le defendant to pay to\n\n. '  'such oompensation for breach\n'   'of_   as the court deems \ufb01t to\n\n =  Section 21 of the Karnataka\n\n Fees Act, 1958.\n\nn 'T in tho unh.k' sly event of the Court coming to\n.V "the conclusion that the plainti\ufb02' or tbs\n second plaintj\ufb02' is not entitled to the relief of\n\nspeci\ufb01c perfoimanoc a decree directing the\n\nM\n\n \n\n\n\ndefendant to refund to the second plainti\ufb01' or \nsuch of the Plaintiffs as the Court \n\nentitled to the advance anaou1112":--.~1'  ~\n\nRs.25,000\/\u00bb taken by the dcfenda.:a.t_j'::eQ::n5..:: ._\n19.05.1982 towards the sale::"p\ufb01\u00e9_< \u00e9.'   . g e\n\nd) Directing the defendant .g-.o pa;.z%r.e    f; %\nplainti\ufb01' or such of the pxaajmrs as  eemgt\nentitled to the full zcgsts    "\n\ne) Granting the   and\nfurther  -as l__th\u00a2_3  of the\ncase     \n3) "  the suit are lands\n\nbearing s,,__N.,A,2e,%g  1 acres 5 Cents and Sy.\n\nNo.29\/fa}:  'E6  Cents situated in Katapadi\n\n _ A Vxnege efeigdupi 'ra1uk. *\n\n.' A ._4)'  of the p}ainti\ufb01's in brief is as under:\n\ndefendant is the absolute owner of the suit\n\n   property. she agreed to sell the schedule\n\n%%   to the 19: p1ai;nti\ufb01' for a total consideration of\n\n '~.,u.Rs.78,650\/--- by calculating the value of the land at\n\n&~\/'\n\n\n\n128.650\/-- per Cent. In this behaif, a \n\nagreement dated 18.05.1982 came into A' \n\nbetween the 18* plaintj\ufb01' and the      d \n\nterms of the agreement, the  do \n\nls: piainti\ufb01 in possession of\u00bb sehedule   .\n\nthe date of the sale deed.  1  of\nRs.2S,{}OO\/- as   dgeeement\nand agreed to receive  at the\ntime of    the property in\nfavour of  months from the\ndate of  She uxadertook to\n\nget the    the non--ag'ricultural use\n\n4_  'to  sale deed in favour of the 1*"\n\n the agreement she was required to\n\n   of the Land to non-agricultural use\n\n _ 'apd aiso Jdpex\ufb01ission \ufb01mn the concerned authorities to\n\ne    lend which was a frawent, within six months\n\n an option to extend the said time by six. more\n\n  Lzrnonths and thus, the time was not essence of the\n\n\u00ae\n\n\n\ncontract. However, the defendant did not comply \ufb01lth\n\nthe conditions of the agreement by " \n\nconcerned authoritim for permission     l \n\nfragmented land and also to    l_ \n\nagricultural use within the time presenter    ll\n\namment. Therefore, the 18';   the\ndefendant to perform '   by\nissuing legal notice dated \ufb01owever, in\nspite of Ieeeiptiel'A   idelendant did not\ntake any"   conditions of the\n  breach of terms of the\n\nagreement.  was always ready and\n\n_.   of the contract in getting the\n\nV.   'A\u00abby:'pa_yi11g the balance sale consideration.\n\nHewe\u00a7er,vV.\ufb01teL: to cneate evidence, sent a reply\n\n % noticeddddategi l1%l1.o4. 1933 falsely contending that she was\n\nr  willing to execute the sale dwd in favour of\n\n  and called upon the 1" plainti\ufb01' to take\n\n.  V   " deed lfrozn her. The defendant was totally not ready\n\n@,\n\n \n\n\n\nand willing to complete the sale transaction and \n\nwas trying to \ufb01nstrate the sale from the very  " \n\nAs per Clause-8 of the agreement  \n\nthe 15: plaintiff is entitled to  \n\nspecific performance of the co11t;'aett'teV"seH  V.\n\nproperty and accordingly the '\n211:1 plajnti\ufb02' as his nojftjgi\ufb02g feijef  \nperformance, andfthis fact  Que: plajnti\ufb02\nas nominee of    to the\n  to execute the\nsale  in  property in favour\nof the szmi   the balance sale\n\n, Vconsidere\ufb01on izispite of repeated demands and notices.\n\nV.   have no alternative but to seek\n\n  of the said agreement. They\n\n 'fuI'therV   that the plaintiffs are even now ready\n   '  to speci\ufb01cally perform their part of\n  The 2*' plaintiff is also ready and W1lhn' ' g to\n\n the balance money in respect of the schedule\n\n@\n\n\n\nproperty to the defendant and thetnefore, the 2nd pldigm\ufb01\n\nis entitlw for the reliefs as sought in the  fiti" %\n\nfurther contended that if the relief.....r4f_':~d.VVs:pemf1A--1: \n\nperformance is refused, the p1amtd:tfs:\u00a7e\u00a7>j'eid\u00bb  7\n\nto legal injury, handship, injdsgioettedddd mcddd;d\u00a2n.s, %\n\nwhereas the defendant wo11i&w\u00ab    any\nhardship or inconvexlietiee\ufb02   the relief of\n\nspeci\ufb01c performance is    V\n\n5)    dams summons, the\ndefendat1t\"\"agi$j;eat9e\u00e9;i\"   Trial Court and\noontesteti. the ft: her written statement\n\ndenying all the Ve.veJ9\u00a3nents\".tnade by the plainti\ufb01s in the\n\nJ \"plaintd  the plaintiffs to prove each and\n\ntddici\ufb01. in the plaint. She contended that\n\nL  shetgnt dated 30.12.1932 to the stat plainti\ufb02\n\n iher Willingness to perform her part of the\n\nV'   and also to execute register sale deed in favour\n\n '11' of\ufb01xe 1\" plairltiff and in spite of the said notice, the W\n\ngdxdinee\" failed to take the sale dmd by paying balance\n\n \n\n\n\nconsideration. She denied the allegation me: 'he \ufb01es\n\nalways ready and willing to perform his \" \n\ncontract'. On the other hand, according     \n\nplaintiff was never ready and     \n\nof the contract. She further  that   k%\n\nof time, the 1st plaintiff t,o1ri\u00b0u hdseeed \nPoojari that he us: pmem  toV'AApeI'chase\nthe schedule property   could sell\nthe same to  and that he\nhas   in respect of the\n Prabhakar shenoy. She\n\nfurther   of the unwillingness\n\n_._and ;1,5r&:1'\u00a7V1*eac1inese_.V:cVv>v1:1 \ufb02ue part of the 1\" plainwf, she\n\n fehe:eo;1%1'act, as such, she is no longer liable\n\n   aeent in question and as the\n\n '    has been terminated, the 1\" plainti\ufb01'\n\n'    ferfeii\ufb01 his right to receive advance of Rs.25,0G0\/~\n\n   him to the defendant at the time of agrmment.\n\n A   eeehe further contended that she is not liable to execute\n\ng,\/'\n\n\n\n11\n\n0\n\nwritten statement \ufb01led, wherein, tkm \n\ncontended that, as the 1\" plaintj\ufb02   _\n\nnominated the 2'\"! plaintiff as his nom:2r\u00bbe\u00a3_:'~f:of~'::: the  \" ~ V. \n\npurpose of speci\ufb01c performance of  ;\n\n18* plainti\ufb01 has no right to   \n\nand the claim made  the  h_\u00a7t   3 of\nBenami Transaction   1933. The\nplainti\ufb01s have  rejcixieieij  statemmt\nfiled by the  the ease of\n\nthe defe1f1cI.a1;f;V.Vf'i'fiey,_h\u00a31ife:else::vep\u00a7itended that the suit\n\nis not Prexnatmwe -\u00bb'-ill \"the additional written\n\nstatement aIiii...\u00a7i11ce't1aieA'.de\ufb01fer1dant failed to perforxn her\n\n of   .i:he.plainti\ufb01's have cause of action\n\nfc.V\ufb01}et.'1eT   speci\ufb01c performance.\n\n En'  light of the above pleadings of the\n\n'  Court framed the following iesues:-\n\nISSUES\n\n \" -  Whether the plaintiffs prove that time is\n\nnot the essence of the ctmtract?\n\ng\u00e9\/.\n\n\n\nVi)\n\n12\n\nWhether plaintiffs prove that they\nwere\/are ready and willing to \n\ntheir part of contract?\n\nWhether plaintiffs pmve  'e1:  .\n\ndefendant has commitfned      _ \n\nagreement? \n\nWhether defendaE1t\"'~    \n\nagreement to  has'  \nterminated as cor;tended\" Para:-:7 of\nthe Written stat:em_en1;  ~ \n\nWhether    for\n  aggeement?\n\n' In    plaintiffs are\nemitletzig for  ef Rs\u00a7j.25,000\/ -?\n\nvii) Whether  Meagan: VvA:\"wis'\u00ab..:\"'emtitk:d tbr\n\nviii)\n\ncompensatory posts uradetj  35-21\nof 0.19.0.9        e\n\nWhat e1f;de1'e.0r  \n\n e kfee*.mnme\u00a7:AL ISSUES\n\nWiiet1Ie:\u00ab the\"'_def=ejx'x&ant preves that the\n\n'wasuit is notfxzaintainabk as it is\n\nIt  premature  eentended?\n\n_  defendant proves that the 1\"\n   p1ai;1ti\ufb01'_ :'.-s a wholly un-necessary party\n  ta-the suit?\n\n\n\n13\n\niii) Whether the sit filed by the plaint\ufb01fs is \nhit by Scc\ufb01on-3 of Benami Transaction.' _T \n(Prohibition) Act, 1988?  w  \n\n8) During the trial, the 18* \n\nhimself as PW. 1, While the dcfend\u00e9gnt  :  \n\nas mv.1. She examined One\ufb01blga  %\n\nP. 14 and :31 to D5 were  Eat' the\n'68. V .. A  .\n\n9)   bath s:aes;ma1 Court by\n\nits judmenf  issue No.1 to\n\n3 and 5 the; that the me was not\n\nessence of    plaintiffs have waved\n\n  are  Willing to perform their pan; of\n\n the defendant has committed blmch\n\nof  the plainti\ufb02s are entitled for\n\n ' 'spec1\ufb01' 'c o'   of the agreement. The um' 1 Court\n\n'   \"3;;'1$\u00a71WemdV\"Issue No.4, '7 and Additional Issues No. I to 3\n\n   1jh'c\"1t1egativc holding that the defendant has failed to\n\n  that the agreement to sell was validly tcrmmwed\n\n&g\n\n\n\n14\n\nand that she has failed to prove that the suit \n\nInaintainable on the ground that it is prema1;\u00a71I*e;.'\" \n\nshe has failed to prove that the 18*   nan\u00bb    \u00bb \n\nurmecessary party to the suit,   fltlie.  3 f\n\nhit by Section 3 of the Benami   .\n\nAct, 1988. The trial court he1dLot:nd  the\nanswers on other issueegiissoe  'not arise for\noonsidera\ufb01on.   of the Trial\nCourt decreed   and directed\nspeci\ufb01c   to sell. The trial\nCourt  Qua p1aint:Z\ufb02' to deposit\n\nRs.53,65o\/';ooebcroi\u00e9eodge  within a period of two\n\n V.1;uo11t;l:fo dgndk  the defendant was directed to\n\nAV.'-execute   sale deed in favour of the 2\"\n\n    of the schedule property within a\n\n  ope:-iod  months. She was also directed to obtain\n\n  :the_ order of conversion of the schedule property into\n\n  '.I\"1o: 1;---a,gric11ltu1'a1 use Rom the competent authority for\n\n : '3X6C1lti0I1 of the sale deed. The trial Court furthe\n\n\n\n15\n\ndirected that the schedule property shall be \n\nthrough conapetem: surveycr and the sale   _\n\ncalculated at 123.650] - per Cent and if t116_.'\u00a33:\".'.'\u00bb\u00a5.A4t:.\"..:IA'}t:'e'f\u00a7\\:.I'i.\u20acA':Sb  \"  >  N\n\nfrom the extent stated in the  \n\nsale price also shall vary pmpm\ufb01mmmiy,   %\n\nmade good by either of the  \nfurther obsexved that \ufb01le  to comply\nwith the decree, t_h.-e_ get the sale\n\ndeed  of  [W ' \n\n10;  by th\u00a2 said judgment and\n\ndecree, ihe' 'sele  \ufb01led appeal before the\n\nDistric3t--J1;dge: uaupi,  ELA. No.11 of 2001. The Lower\n\n   ai'\u00a3ei?W}V1ean'ng the parties, framed the\n\nrbalirmg  fer COI1SidCI'&ti0112-\n\n ..  A\u00ab:_\\3i.r'V14'1etI1e1' plaintiffs have complied with\n the mandate of Section 16(0) of\nSpeci\ufb01c Relief Act ----- 1963?\n\n ii) Whether the learned Civil Judge\n(Sr.Dn.), Udupi, is justified in \ufb01ving a\n\ufb01nding to the effect that time was not\nthe essence of Contract? \n\n\n\n \n\n_,  Pointek   2 in the amrmative, Points ----~ 3\n\n and Point No.5 partly in the\n\n%H ameu\ufb01aevefhekengtnatumpeene\ufb01stmwecxnnpnedxmun\n\n T the  Section 16(0) of the SR. Act; that the\n\u00abeh-h\ufb01\ufb02(\u00a7nyeiejus\ufb01h&d\ufb021gwhugafku\ufb01ngtothecmkwt\ufb02nu\n  was not essence of the contract; that the decree\n\n'V '   trial court directing the defendant to get the Land\n\n16\n\niii) Whether the decree is unenforceable in  \" 7\nView of the dinection gven to \ndefendant to get the land   5 _.__ \u00e9 \ninto noI1~--agricult1n'a1 purposes   '\nthe competent authorities?  ._ _.  V'\n\niv) Whether an issue  ;\ncomparative hardshipvgaf the    '\ncontemplated under \"Section 29 \"of ' \nSpeci\ufb01c Relief . Act  ferjuei\nand proper --._ _ 'fdeter1I;.iIia!i0xi * . _ of the\ndk\ufb01n\ufb01e?   e_a  \u00abnee.\n\nV)   for by\n  .11'. se,._Vto _w'E;at eiitent?\n\nvi)  the pam 'es\n  \n11)'--,_ ._ --O;1\"\"..--'re'-assessment of the oral and\n\ndocumentaijr   Lower Appellate Court\n\n&\/\n\n\n\n17\n\nconverted to the non-agrieultzuml purposes fromlhe\nCompetent Authority is not unenforceable; \" \n\nof speci\ufb01c issue regarding the comparative    K \n\nthe parties under Section 20 of the'  \n\nnot required; and that the  xthe\n\ndoes not call for interferemne,  'the  is\n\njustified in holding that  em-aw for the\nreliefs as sought in the   the Lower\nAppellate Court_ diamissed   the\n\njudment of   zihected' that the\n\nappellant  land surveyed with the\nassistance at\"  within two months\nfrom  date  ef'   by making necessaxy\n  Authorities with the cost of the\nI\"   appellant was further directed to\n\n  move   authorities for getting' Convasion\n\n aft the. suit land for non-agricultural purposes\n\nas months from the date of the judgment with\n\n   '\"pfoper irltimation to the 1\u00bb pla1'nti\ufb01' and if the\n\n5\/\n\n\n\n19\n\narbitrary, being contrary to law and the \nmaterial on reconi? T\n\nii) Whether the Courts below V'  M\n\njustified in decreeing; -to;-%kkk %\nspeci\ufb01c perfoxmanoe,  p?Js s\u00a21s$i\u00a7}n' \"  j\nhad been handodmfer ta um plai1'ii:\u00a7..fVI \u00a7.\nand the land is z1oi;*vL4:z:1_V_i'c:z:* '\nagnbuitural  {Isa  di\u00e9C1'etio\u00a71\nexercised by the %  bexmv in\ndec1'eei;1g tIf1_t_-3.. ..$1;~.it    for\nspecit'i's>%%TAJ'per:'orma\u00a3zce;L%%isx  to\n\n  riotice of this appeal,\nRespondenf NC). 1 _\/V   has appeared through the\n\n\"  {:\u00a7:\u00a7uns6I,'A V\"\\v}.'-ails Respondent No.2 hag entered\n\nVcave\u00e9t. _   \n\n%%14) f 5% hearing the learned counsel appearing\n\n   ii on going through the judmrents of\n\nbelow, Iwas convinced that few more substantial\n\n\"\u00bb q1l6St1OI}.g of law also anscs for conslderanon kl thus\n\n@\n\n\n\n20\n\nappeal. Therefore, the following additional \n\nquestion of law were framed:\n\ni) Whether the Courts below are  \n\nin holding that the 2\ufb01d::'plai\u00a7 1ti\ufb01',*\u00ab.wR:e.:is    X\nstated to be the nominee pf -_1\u00a7*  \u00ab. \" \n\nis entitled to seek \nof the  --  T_\nwas I10 of \nplaintiff and aemang?  ~  \n\nii)    justi\ufb01ed\n11;;   17mg p\u00a3ainti\ufb01' being\n\n A' pm-zhaser of the\n progiefiy .. '\" the ag'eement---Ex.P 1\n\n'A was  to perform his\n\n5- .. LA  'me  and has complied\n,  5vi1\u00a7h f.fie'~rec;ui1ement of Section 16(0)\nA  s. 12. Act, though he had parted\n\nH  his interest in the agreement in\n\n feeder of 2nd plaimti\ufb01'?\n\n\" Having regard to the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case, whether the\nCourts below, in Law, could have\nexercised discretion at all for deereeing\n\n{V\n\n\n\n21\n\nspeci\ufb01c performance in favour of the \n\n2nd plaintiff, who is not a party to \n\ncontract?\n\nIn the light of the above, thz:\"\"'Iea1j_m:d \n\nappearing for patties were    \n\nsubmissions. Accordingly,    \n\nabove points.\n\n15) Sri. l?ad_ubidri\"'  Roe, learned\nSenior   appeal, urged\n1) The ipiainuirso\u00bb  no\ufb01gagacmtmsts and both of\nthem iIioomo\"'t;ax::aosossees, as such, they are\nnoiientitiod Vtobiily or  agricultural lands as\n Section 79A\"\"\"'ai1d 8-0 of the Karnataka Land\n ' Iv\u00e9efomis  Therefore, the decree granted by the\n Aibeloov' contrary to the said provisions, as\nSiIiCh,,.__it iopexversc and illegal.\n\n.:   AS the ageement, the total consideration for\n\n\"\"..i:'hc:*\" property agreed to be sold has to be\n\n [ascertained after measuring the land and then\n\nmultiplying the total extent with Rs.6-50\/~ per\n%\u00a3=\/\n\n\n\niv)\n\nCent, therefore, it is not a concluded oont:'act,--..as\nthe total consideration is not speci\ufb01c. V. '\n\nAs per agreement, the saie    \nexecuted only after getting   into \nnon-agricultural use and  is \n\nContingent Contract.\n\nThough in the p.lait1t\"'\u00a3\u00a7fash'\ufb01ovv.,.rc3}tef for\ndirecting the  to gemenene converted\nfor non-ag1'ioultura1,_:f1s.e  the sale\ndeed, the    directions in\nthat   ._:directions are i\ufb02egal\n  '  \n\nAs   have directed that the\ndefendazit =shou1Ad_\" obtain an order of conversion\n\n_ _  exee1iti11g_Athe sale deed, the decree passed\n  db};  Comte below is not executable, in the\n\n  \"  is no speci\ufb01c decnee directing\n\n'e ,_.\u00a7;iefe:3dei.?%j;td:;to execute the sale deed and there is no\n\niimdiee\ufb01on as to what should happen if the\n\n so :R.eve\"11ue Autlxor\ufb01ies refused to gant permission\nV' vt-9: covnezt the land for non--agricultura1 use, thus,\n\n the decree is vague.\n\nM\n\n\n\n \n\n23\n\nBoth the com-:;s\" below have failed to taI;e'e',:.i:i:t.<)\n\nconsidera\ufb01on the fact of 1" plainti\ufb01" ~ \n\nwith his right under the agxeement in faeeur \n2nd plaintiff as a   "\nreasonable to infer that the  \nready and Willing to his  (if rxiee V'\n\ncontract and therefore',    ' c\nperformance of the ---Wee not\nmaintainable in  l_ig!_1t er  15(0) of the\n\nSpeci\ufb01c ReliefAct.   V'\n\nAdmittedf ,  is   between\nthe 2114::  deferigzient in respect of the\nsa}.e bf   and merely because\nthe---2nd   be the nommee of the 15*\n - use was    entitled to seek speci\ufb01c\nerjforeen\u00a3:ez11;_ " "Of  t\ufb01e agreement against the\n\n_ A "'defende'n't, as'$'iiel91, the decree of the Courts below\n.     defendant to execute the sale deed in\n. = AA'favdi1e"."L:e1'e:="the 234 plaintiff' is not legal and\n\nVeusteinable and it is opposed to the provisions of\n\n x Tse\u00e9eeain 15 of the s. R. Act.\n\n  "'I"iie Courts below have totally failed to eonside1' as\n to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the\n\nease, the discretionary relief of Speci\ufb01c\n\n6\/\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n24\n\nPerformance could be gantod in favour of "QM\n\nplaintiff and in this regard both the Couyf\ufb01s \nhave ignored the e\ufb01oct of the provisionsiaf  \n\n20 of the S. R. Act.\n\nix) Grant of Speci\ufb01c perrorman\u00a2eoobe\u00a3;%1g  \n\n'the Courts below  toohaye  the\nsaid discretion in favour___oi'2\ufb013.  when\nadmittedly mmwas    of Contract\nbetween the 2""   and\nought to   this is a \ufb01t\ncase o;)3\u00a7}--..    amount\nwith reasona;p1\u00a2ko\u00a7n\u00a2\u00a2kr\u00a7sz;&   A\n\nThe Ieariacd~. s%ex:;i<\u00a7r%%joo  : submitted that the\n\ndefendant is    the advance amount of\n\n'   .of__the plaintiffs with reasonable\n\n  isiipport of his various contentions, he\n\n  \u00a3116 following decisions: -\n\n  AIR io\u00e9o so 504\n\n    CHACKO Vs. THE STATE BANK OF\n\n TRAVANCORE]\n\nIa\/o\n\n \n\n\n\niv)\n\n25\n\nAIR 1995 SC 1607\n\n[S.V.R MUDALIAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND" \n(DEAD) :BYfT_ \n\nVs. MRS. RAJABU F. BUHARI\nAND OTHERS]\n\nAIR 1998 SC 2216\n\n[GANESH sum' Vs.\nOTHERS]\n\nAIR 1996 SC 2150\n\n[KANSHI RAM V55-o.oooy:%  JAWAL AND\n\nOTHERS]\n\n(1937) sum.'  11* \n\n[  *v\u00a7:1%iLL \u00ab.F_\u20acV5SE'PVVIF1"\u00a7 SON MATHEW\nr;EoUMB;aRAooio%oo% Ig".rRU3zILA's son AND\n\nVs. V _\n\n16)  tncauaa Sr: Nataraj Ballal sought\n\nto support  "of the Courts below and\n\n ..... \n<\/pre>\n
     Courts below have concurrently
\n‘held uiatothe plaizatiifs more particularly, the 1\u00bb:<\/p>\n
 ,” {who is the party to the axiom was<\/p>\n
 ..a1wayo feady and willing to perform his part of the<\/p>\n
 corjii\u00a3I’act and that it is on amount of the failure on<\/p>\n
 \u00e9:he part of the defendant to perform her part of<\/p>\n
  “the contract by getting the convesrsion order from<\/p>\n
the competent revenue authorities, the sale<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
DR.  =  <\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction could not be completed and <\/p>\n
the plainties are entitled for the relief
\nperformance and this concurrent \ufb01ndixig    ‘
\nCourts below are sound,  as euch.;jj’_the3\u00a7rv’–do ‘* V<\/p>\n
not warrant iiltetfezenee by   ‘   ” ~. <\/p>\n
The terms of the V H  V  the%<\/p>\n
defendant to execute the” etitfjlervvfgizl the<\/p>\n
name of the 16’   any of<\/p>\n
ilis nominees,      has<\/p>\n
nominated the  “sale deed and<\/p>\n
the said_Vfec\u00a3.1:i1es.,;t}een_:V the defendant<\/p>\n
by a   competent to seek
\n   {gent and it is in
\nthe ‘ef   the Courts below have
\ngranted ‘relief an;i’e no illegality in the said.
\nordez’-of the  Eielew.\n<\/p>\n
_’  The  circumstances of the case clearly
\nA   the defendant, though was under<\/p>\n
 to get the land converted into non\u00bb<\/p>\n
 ,_  V   purpose, failed to move the concerned
\nV’ V. fevenue authorities and even after havizig received<\/p>\n
”  “‘?rIie”major poxtion of the amount as advance, she<\/p>\n
  in possession of the property and<\/p>\n
continued to enjoy the bene\ufb01t from the propmty,<\/p>\n
g,\/\u00b0<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n
has failed to perform her part of the conu*actl and
\ntherefore, the conduct on the part of the ~ H
\ndis-entitled herself from seeking equity
\nhands of the Court: in her faV_O3.~.”.’_’  e   e e<\/p>\n
Merely because the   .\n<\/p>\n
agriculturists and ince_;’ne–ta$i
\nnot prevented from   of
\nthe agreement in  ee;x,_r,a\u00a7Vi”(:11.ltu1’aVlV’A}aV}1ds, as
\nSection 79-A and ’30 L  Land
\nReforms Aei’d_o    of the Civil
\nCourt  relief 9!’  perfomianee of
\n    lands in
\nfavo1.;r”oI’  A  ‘  V <\/p>\n
The neI1x–\ufb011.entiei3;Ei:g,?:_”e1:’1ti’ie total amount of the
\nsale eonsi\u00e9etje\ufb01oil  the segment was obviously<\/p>\n
  ozi-\u00a7\u00e92c(;g\u00a7ux;_t of”the…nen-ascertainment of the exact
\n__ . e;::teVn?:_A of land and therefore, the parties
\n t_1:r;’;;ght”‘it’_\ufb01\u00a3’V:’e5 mention the value of the land per<\/p>\n
cent  the total value could be ascertained<\/p>\n
  after the measurement\/survey of the land and on
\n  ..  it cannot be held that there was no
\n.’  “”ee’neiuded eonmwt. 5\/<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
The condition on the part of the defendargttto<\/p>\n
obtain conversion order does not
\nagreement as a Contingent contI’act._f ‘.
\nCourts below were justi\ufb01eq in  ee * kt
\ndefendant to obtain the   e
\nieeepeee e <\/p>\n
order, as the Civil court
\nsuch directions. V <\/p>\n
The 2nd plaintiff L e  1st
\nplaintiif is a ‘% expression
\n“Representetixfe reeed ..S3ectien 159:.)
\nof the       competent to
\nseek  agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The __Ceurts below do not suffer<\/p>\n
\ufb01bre eny 1:’-regzxlarity and this Court
\neheumx gee _ eerightlyet interfere with the said<\/p>\n
.   of the Courts below sitting in
\nA  under Section 100 of C.P.C.,<\/p>\n
  appeal is liable to be dismissed. In
\n‘  his contentions he placed relimlee on<\/p>\n
the vfellowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
 =  AIR 1993 MADRAS 100<\/p>\n
[RVELAMMAL Vs.R. DAIVASIGAMANI AND<\/p>\n
OTHERS]
\n\ufb01r –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  -haw perused the records of the courts below.<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
ii) AIR 1997 so 3236
\n[HABIBA maroon Vs. UBAIDUL HUQ AND
\nOTHERS]  .\n<\/p>\n
 AIR1992KAR375    _ \n[MUNISETTAPPA     '\n\nKRISHNAPPA AND       \n\niv) AIR 2000 303106, %    ' \n<\/pre>\n
[GOBIND RAM vseVG:,AN CIjI’AN\u00a7D}_  <\/p>\n
v) 2006(1)
\n[P.C. VARQHESTE k  asvm AMMA
\nBALAMBIKA DEVI’*.A1\u00a7\u20acI;r ofrrggnsl<\/p>\n
vi) AIR 2001 <\/p>\n
vii) 2da7;\u00a7II\u00a7VV%SC:&’%j:%1%33\u00a73%%
\nA%%{1>Js;~k, RA;}:\u00a3AI{RISHNAVV~~v”REDDY Vs. M.K.
\n l3HAGYA.LA}i.S1\ufb02JEI_ AND ANOTHER]<\/p>\n
viii) AIR Azoezksc 2335
\n[A;=MARIA._ ANGELBNA (D) AND omsres vs.
\n% _A.e. BALKIS BEE]<\/p>\n
   SCALE 569\n<\/p>\n
–   NATH SHARMA Vs. SHYAM
\n  GOELA AND ANOTHER]<\/p>\n
x)~ V”-.ViLR’:”V’1986 KAR 4031
\n* {JOSE Vs. ANAN”I’HA BHAT]<\/p>\n
    I have carefully considered the submissions<\/p>\n
.   by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. I<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
13) The undisputed facts are that the .<\/p>\n
is the absolute owner of the schedule   <\/p>\n
are agricultural iands. The defenrie;’nt  ihe V<\/p>\n
suit schedule lands in favourof tlit3.__l.i*%_i)’1a1nt3’\u00bb”‘V’_vif’1e.irted.  <\/p>\n
registered agreement of sale
\nUnder the said agxeeziiept,  i  a
\nsum of Rs.25,000\/- as  and
\nagreed to    at the
\ntime of  the presence of
\nthe   sale oonsideratitm
\nhas “eiie agreement, the parties
\nhave   of the land should be at<\/p>\n
Gent  izhe total consideration should be<\/p>\n
 measuring the land. As per the<\/p>\n
  ‘contents gf ttiei agreement (Ex.P1), the defendant was<\/p>\n
‘I,<\/p>\n
_ .. .e _e    obtain permission for sale of the framented<\/p>\n
    also get the land oonvatw for non-<\/p>\n
 ‘:’_4:ag*ie11lt131’a1 use Within six months. It is an undispated<\/p>\n
  ‘feet that the defendant did not obtain either of the<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
permissions within the time statod in the agteemeziit’-.or<\/p>\n
within the extended period. Ultimatciy, the i <\/p>\n
was not completed and this bd the     .,  <\/p>\n
present suit.\n<\/p>\n
19) There is no dispiiao’   <\/p>\n
are non-agiculturists  ttiozo   to
\nincome\u00abtax. As noticed   :f__nattcr of the
\nsuit are agxicuitmfai    the KLR Act
\nprohibits ”    acquiring the
\nagict\ufb02tixfai’ ii?-3′  section, on and
\nfrom  Act No. 1\/ 1974 w.c.f.\n<\/p>\n
01.03. V1974,’ i\ufb01o  or a family or a joint famiiy<\/p>\n
3   assu1\u00b0’\u00e9ti’Vazmual income of not less than<\/p>\n
  Twelve thousand) \ufb01om sources<\/p>\n
L   ot11ierL..t11an44:_V   lands shall be enticed to acquire<\/p>\n
  ian\u00e9ijirhcthcr as land owner, landlord, tenant or<\/p>\n
  with possession or otherwise or partly in one<\/p>\n
 “if  and partly in another. Section 80 of the Act.<\/p>\n
   jgirohibits transfer of agricultural land to new<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
agrioulturist. As per this Section no sale, <\/p>\n
exchange or lmse of any land or interest  A’  _<\/p>\n
favour of a person who is not an   ”  <\/p>\n
is dison\ufb01tled under Section 79-Al: <\/p>\n
or hold any land, is lawf11l..=’i+Iowe’vo1j’,”‘  i<\/p>\n
section empowers the   grant
\npermission for such    of micultural
\nland to a noneagticuktzzorist  a. person
\ndisentitlod  7943 to acquire or
\nhold the   Commissioner is
\nsatis\ufb01ed   \ufb01de intending to take<\/p>\n
up i _   of Section 79-A and<\/p>\n
4_1.Sec1ion.{_’8″O*of tho zamga; indicates that the bar under<\/p>\n
  sisiggoztotai as it provides for acquisition of<\/p>\n
  V  by non-agriculturist with the<\/p>\n
 pormissioriv,  the Assistant Commissioner. The<\/p>\n
i  v\ufb01foijibitioniiitmdor Section 79-A is only for acquisition of<\/p>\n
 land by person having income more<\/p>\n
 the limit mentioned in the said section fmm<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
Merely because the total consideration has not <\/p>\n
speci\ufb01ed, the contract does not ipscrfacto ” <\/p>\n
invalid on the ground that there is   e  <\/p>\n
contract. The parties have   <\/p>\n
the rate at which’ the property sholild\ufb01e solr}.’;7-   V.<\/p>\n
obviously for the reason   not
\nde\ufb01nite as to What is  ”  and
\nthat has to be
\nFinding out    rate speci\ufb01ed
\nin the    of calculation after
\n  I see no substance in<\/p>\n
the eontentioneof  Counsel that there<\/p>\n
_ is no V’ eoi1e1uded’ cnnunot, on the ground that the total<\/p>\n
V.  is not speci\ufb01ed in the ageement.<\/p>\n
”  V.  earlier, as per the terms of the<\/p>\n
 the defendant was required to obtain<\/p>\n
  for sale of the fragmented land and also<\/p>\n
 ‘:*  conversion of the land in question to non\u00bb<\/p>\n
   \u00e9igieultural use. It is based on these conditions<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
contained in Ex.P1, the argument of the learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel was that, it is 3. corrmngent ” <\/p>\n
therefore, it is void, and Since the conve1’$_ien.V.h:\u00a7\u00a7s  ‘   t <\/p>\n
been secured, such agreement  not   <\/p>\n
enforced. Section 31 of Vth\u00e9e    V.<\/p>\n
def1nes,~ A Contingent     or
\nnot to do something, if  such
\ncontract, does oxjdoes not?  contents of
\nEx.P1 are   transaction
\ncannot be    pexmissimxs are
\n  themagreement would say<\/p>\n
that unless  thoee  are obtained, the<\/p>\n
V is not entitled to get the sale deed in his<\/p>\n
.  ….. ..\n<\/p>\n
 rem.  the conditions contained in Ex.P1<\/p>\n
 for sale of the fxfamented<\/p>\n
H t’ land  the conversion for non~ag’iculturaI use<\/p>\n
  nzere eonditions and it has no e\ufb01-‘eat on the<\/p>\n
 cofenietion of the transaction The purchaser under the<\/p>\n
  ‘ A * was not precluded from obtaining a sale deed<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
even if the permissions are not obtained. O!:)t,a-iI1i11:.g”‘*.<e;.:f<\/p>\n
the permissions was not a condition precea:'xe:ot._\u00b0 <\/p>\n
execution of the sale deed and therefore,  V'   D <\/p>\n
said that the contract was a  I.' T <\/p>\n
within the meaning of Sections'  oft  t<\/p>\n
such, the agreement cannot
\nto be contended by  There
\nis also no substance    by the
\nlearned  below had no
\njurisdietioo   1\/ttclformanoe of the
\n ._  ques\ufb01on has not been<\/p>\n
converted   use, as the Court while<\/p>\n
__. V.considae1\u00a711g  "  'Whether the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
  performance of agreement of sale'<\/p>\n
wsetxot to consider, as to whether 'any other<\/p>\n
   the competent authority was required' ,<\/p>\n
 es,  consideration has to be made by the<\/p>\n
  ___"'euthofi\ufb01es while regstering the document. Therefore,<\/p>\n
 Civil Court had jurisd1et1' 'on to d1rec1;' speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
Performance of agreement of sale even in <\/p>\n
agricultural land, though the land was not   _<\/p>\n
into non-agricultural purpose. No doubt;    ” * ~. <\/p>\n
below in the judgment and ;\n<\/p>\n
to what happens if the Revenue <\/p>\n
yam: permission to ‘eonve_IEf’:-‘.v T_  non-
\nagricuitural use. Howe\ufb01ref,  it cannot be
\nsaid that the deeree    in the
\ncase of    vs. SHYAH
\n [2007 (31 scans
\n569]    Council judgment in
\nMonuu.  1930 Inc. 237), which<\/p>\n
,~,i\ufb01s  1v)yV the…_Ape3x Court in ms. cmmms<\/p>\n
 “.\u00a7FI\u00a7\u00a7i’AA’a’–i_’,g\u00a7~\ufb01..\u00a7:\u00a72aDDEN Vs. C.L. xamu. [AIR 1964 so<\/p>\n
  cmumrox vs. cmmr LA!<\/p>\n
  [Am 1971 SC 1238] has observed thus<\/p>\n
\u00ab     efthe Judgment:\n<\/p>\n
T “I2. The Privy Council in Mo\ufb01lal Vs.
\nNanhelal. AIR 1930 RC. 287, laid down that
\nif the vendor had agreed to sell the property<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
which can be transferred only with the; _
\nsanction of some government authority,  A.
\ncourt has jurisdiction to order the ven\u00e9bf     M
\napply to the authority
\nThis proposition of law was:=,foHos\u00a7j;\u00a73d’4’i;i   ‘  f
\nChandnee Widya wag Madden vs: V
\nKatial AIR 1964 so 978v..:a:L12.d R;C;–. c::a%ndio1:’k k<\/p>\n
vs. cmmi Lai Sabharwa1….\u00a7IR–_ 19.71 sc % <\/p>\n
The Privy  A  (supra)<\/p>\n
also laid down  *is   an
\nimplied  {$31   bf ..1;1_;\u00a7%;’1}endor to<\/p>\n
do all   \u00e9_\ufb01’cct; transfer of<\/p>\n
thev   he has agreed<\/p>\n
to   Vendee. Permission<\/p>\n
fmxiz. the’  O\ufb01ioer is<\/p>\n
not aR\u00a2c211\u00a3iviti(:3:1  for grant of decree<\/p>\n
.  speci\ufb01f:”m1jf91mancc. High Court relied
\n %  i\ufb01sxxecision in Mrs. Chandnee Widya
\n   Dr. C.L. Kati] (supra) and
\n gaheb Shri Bhim Singhji Vs. Union<\/p>\n
gym. (AIR 1951 so 234) to substamiiate<\/p>\n
 AA : Lt11e ‘conclusivc. In Mrs. Chandnce Widya
\n ‘\u00bb-fsixpra) this Court con\ufb01rmed the decisitm of
\n the }”a11jab and Haxyana High Court holding<\/p>\n
that if the Chief Commissioner ultimately<\/p>\n
\ufb01g<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
refused to gant the sanction to the sale, the <\/p>\n
plaintiff may not be able to enforce  j ~
\ndecree for speci\ufb01c performance   M<\/p>\n
comraet but that was not a _bar__to  ‘”<\/p>\n
passing a decree for that relief.  ” f A  A’<\/p>\n
the position in the   ‘elf after.  _
\ngrant of the decree of    d
\nthe contract, the _ Land \u00ab~~–af\u00a7d ‘ ” *Dfevelopme1a3t
\nOfficer refused   for sale
\nthe decree holder may  as  to
\nenforce brat  held that
\nsuch 3;  ‘a  precedent
\n   performance<\/p>\n
of me coneegx\ufb01,  <\/p>\n
23)   aforesaid decisions of the<\/p>\n
–vSi\u00a21premie    substance in the contentions<\/p>\n
 by \u00abthe  Senior Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
  aeren\u00e9daatd  regard. Hence, I reject the said<\/p>\n
d T ~.._ _ ‘ conten\ufb01on; }_<\/p>\n
dd  24} In the light of the above discussion, the two<\/p>\n
‘ ljjsubsfantial questions of law framed while admitting the<\/p>\n
” appeal are answered in the negative. <\/p>\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
25) The crucial aspect required to be <\/p>\n
is, ‘whether in the facts and cimumstances of” %<\/p>\n
the Courts below could have %% e . <\/p>\n
performance of the ag1’eeInent~Ej;.P1′–..’i\u00e9r.1   of’<\/p>\n
second plaintiff ?\n<\/p>\n
26) Admittedly the’ is 1″1″(JA\u00bbt *a  to
\nthe agreement of   there is no
\nprivity of contsae; ee and the
\ndefendant  the 2nd plaintitr<\/p>\n
is his    in respect of the
\nschedule  to the plaintiff’ under<\/p>\n
Ex.P1, the veIie1Gr:Vw’a$  to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
“‘faveu}i’ \ufb01f   or his nominee. Thus,<\/p>\n
aemelg  he is entitled to nominate a<\/p>\n
  the vendor should execute the sale<\/p>\n
 X andmfcomingly in exercise of that right, the 2nd<\/p>\n
  been appointed as his nominee by the 16*<\/p>\n
  Reading’ of the avermems made in the pleint<\/p>\n
 well as the relief sought, indicate that the plain\ufb01\ufb01s<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
have sought for a direction to the defendant to egeeiite<\/p>\n
the sake deed in favour of the 2nd plainti\ufb02’ at    _<\/p>\n
the 2nd plaintiff. There is also an   ”  <\/p>\n
that, if in the event of the <\/p>\n
conclusion that any of the “a_I”e not <\/p>\n
the reiief of speci\ufb01c   gemount
\nof Rs.25,000\/- be     to the 2nd
\nplaintiff. It is  this  considered,
\nas to whetiler   to the reliefs
\nsought     ‘the SR. Act deals
\nwith t11e’:,_  ff ” obtain the speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
performance.”  this section, Speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
 of 3.  may be obtained by any party<\/p>\n
th.eret0,._ \u00a7.e;~;geV\u00ab\ufb021′;arties to the contract or the<\/p>\n
   or the Principal, of any of the<\/p>\n
 to ‘the’  As noticed above, the Sand plainti\ufb02’<\/p>\n
   to the contract. The question is as to<\/p>\n
  .s\u00a7fied.1er the 2nd p1am:;ifr’\u00e9ou1d fall under the expression<\/p>\n
 ..,’ii’\u00a7’epresex1tative-ir1~iI1te1’est”. Perusal of the judments<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Courts below do not indicate that the <\/p>\n
below have considered, as to whether the A’ <\/p>\n
would fall under the categoly     > <\/p>\n
interest” and he could seek  To <\/p>\n
agrment. This aspect,  -my   .\n<\/p>\n
goes to the very root: of the iofu  to
\nobtain a decrw for V    the
\njurisdiction of  cou,\u00a2,%gg   Qe\ufb01ef in his
\nfavour. _ ‘V   ‘_      <\/p>\n
27)_ __ Zoe’  the agwent-\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P1,  obligation to execute the<\/p>\n
sale deed    plaintiff or in favour of<\/p>\n
fghe    purchaser by a Ietter sent<\/p>\n
  Post, the agreement does not<\/p>\n
  ;_ \u00e9\u00e9\u00e9iietlaer the purchaser is emitled to<\/p>\n
 _as.s_ign 1 ii:5  under the agreement. As, prima facie<\/p>\n
  ‘oi’._the parties to a contract are assi\ufb01able, it can<\/p>\n
  oieslened that the purchaser under Ex.Pl namely,<\/p>\n
44  1st piamtimaad a right to assig1 his right tmder the<\/p>\n
\/7<\/p>\n
@\/<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
for execution of the sale deed and refund of ‘in<\/p>\n
favour of the 2nd plaintiff were made in the piaili\ufb02  _<\/p>\n
this, it is clear that the 1st plainti\ufb01’ mus_t..”  <\/p>\n
with his right under the agieemeidt  <\/p>\n
plaintiff for consideration.<\/p>\n
23) In the case-.__ of   R.<\/p>\n
mzmsraamm [1  fetied upon by
\nthe learned    the Division
\nBench of the   has considered the<\/p>\n
case,   agreed to purchase
\ncertain   \ufb01led a suit for speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
perforgnance .5: _the.  Vagreem’ em, but, during the<\/p>\n
  iot1e=9f  was examined. In the light<\/p>\n
ef  ‘V44Vezt_im’gument was addressed before the<\/p>\n
i    other two plaintiffs, who did not<\/p>\n
‘ ”  the weimess box are not entitled for the speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
  Rejecting the said oorlten\ufb01on, the Madras<\/p>\n
 lifiighi Court held that it is unnecessary for all the<\/p>\n
“p’t:aiI1tifi’s to enter the witness box and the awment<\/p>\n
e\/<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
being jointly entered into by all the three plaiI1t:i\ufb01’s,T’ e11e<\/p>\n
of them could give evidence on behalf of all.  <\/p>\n
observation is made in the said      <\/p>\n
sale agreement, the defendant   <\/p>\n
deeds either separately or  in  of  V’<\/p>\n
plainti\ufb01s or their nominees.  <\/p>\n
observed that, it was  to say
\nthat the other    the witness
\nbox. In the     to whether a
\npurchaser   in respect of any
\nimmovazyle  his interest under the<\/p>\n
 ilrfaveur  party, if so, whether such<\/p>\n
V assig;1;ee’er nomieee could enforce speci\ufb01c performance<\/p>\n
    did net arise for consideration.<\/p>\n
   can be drawn from the said<\/p>\n
.decisiein.  e <\/p>\n
    In new ammo\u00bb: vs. mamm. Hm<\/p>\n
  0&5 (AIR 1997 so 3236), the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    eonsidered a case involving ageement of re~<\/p>\n
\/!<\/p>\n
gx<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
conveyance. In this decision, the Apex Court <\/p>\n
that the agreement of re-conveyance A’ <\/p>\n
interpreted as conferring personal  n\ufb02’l-f’.b’ ‘<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, a submission   by <\/p>\n
relevant terms of the doou1r1enf;”     ‘<\/p>\n
conveyanee was sought to be  on  select
\nbody of persons,  whom,
\nhis own children.,_  on the
\nnelzoaining     it cannot be
\nenjoyed   :__  therefore, the
\nbene\ufb01ciaries  from assigning
\ntheir right of  However, the
\nAge);    argument observing thus:–<\/p>\n
 _    as original vendor is concerned,
\n   a right to get re-\n<\/p>\n
 of the suit house within a period<\/p>\n
 of timee’;.months. If he himself get this right<\/p>\n
   nothing prevented him as the full<\/p>\n
 of the re-conveyed house from almost<\/p>\n
…simuitaneously selling it to stranger.<\/p>\n
Similarly, if he fails to enforce the right<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
Within time, his children could enforce that” <\/p>\n
right within the same period and so  V’
\nthey are concerned, nothing is indicated’ a  ”<\/p>\n
the document either expressly  dor ” 3 4′<\/p>\n
necessary inapiication, that  e  ._r1ot’ = f A  = T A’<\/p>\n
assign the said right once\u00e9it  A’
\nin favour of any   S
\nconjoint reading of the;\n<\/p>\n
cannot be said that.x\ufb021e   the
\nsaid right    to<\/p>\n
be purely ‘  ~  V.  was
\nirlalienasibie    mar have been
\nassigzzedrjio  remade W earmarked,
\nlisifed _’r;atego1f3_Vf\u00ab.of~ speci\ufb01ed in the<\/p>\n
docuznent ‘  <\/p>\n
_ Under;  the Apex Court held that<\/p>\n
    of right to repurchase by son of original<\/p>\n
\u00a7end::ere\u00abd% er-\u00bbplainti\ufb02’ was therefore, valid.<\/p>\n
dd   *1’hus;’he1v\u00a5i:r1g  to the fact that the original vendor<\/p>\n
.  ‘ re-conveyance am\ufb01ent lmd right to obtain<\/p>\n
  the Apex Court held that either the<\/p>\n
  ‘ A * {vendor or his heirs had right to ass1gn’ that right<\/p>\n
 ‘<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
and the assiglee would acquhe right to enfe1’eee’:the<\/p>\n
same. However, in the case on hand, we are A’ <\/p>\n
with the re-eonveyance agreement. V’ V   ”  d <\/p>\n
augment of sale between the <\/p>\n
defendant. The ayeement d0es_ note .<\/p>\n
that the 15* plaintiff is
\nC1ause–8 of E1-LP}. in  not impliedly
\nindicate that the 1st  his right
\nunder the    is that
\nthe  piamue by mean
\n ‘defendant to execute the<\/p>\n
sale deed ‘irne4:14’a1Ieii;t’_(E>”i’V da  Agreement—Ex.P1 do<\/p>\n
___not    the assignee or nominm to<\/p>\n
 tf;e.agfee;}aent. Under these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
 of the Apex Court has no application<\/p>\n
 ‘ ‘te ef\ufb01dmis ease.\n<\/p>\n
 In the mse of HUMSETTAPPA 4%<\/p>\n
 vs. 3.  A AAR) Amzm [Am
\n  992 XAR 375] relim upon by the learned eounsei for<\/p>\n
&\/<\/p>\n
50<\/span><\/p>\n
the plainti\ufb01; the learned Single Judge of this <\/p>\n
considered the question, whether the suit A’ <\/p>\n
performance of re-cenveyance    ”  <\/p>\n
abated upon the death of the <\/p>\n
case, the sole plaixltiff had -f;led “aV_ euVit   %<\/p>\n
performance of ageeznent of  of
\nan immovable  ‘During
\nthe pendency of me saiglees\ufb01jig  died, his
\nLRS. \ufb01led     to continue
\nthe suit  the right to sue
\nand to    on them. However, the<\/p>\n
trial Court  “mi  under the agreement is<\/p>\n
_,I:1ot  V   therefore, upon the<\/p>\n
of his heirs and legal repxmentatives<\/p>\n
  said proceedings. In that new’ of<\/p>\n
 .___ti’:a,e_  suit came to be dismissed as abated.<\/p>\n
 order of the trial Court was questioned before this<\/p>\n
  The learned Single Judge of this Court held that<\/p>\n
  tum Court is not justified in dismissmg the suit as<\/p>\n
S2<\/p>\n
in favour of the parties to the agecment. There wiil”<\/p>\n
mutual obliga\ufb01ons still to be performed. ” <\/p>\n
unless the agmement speci\ufb01cally or   K  <\/p>\n
for assiguncnt or transfer of such; ‘oi’  _ <\/p>\n
and party, the right under rm,   ”<\/p>\n
are mutual obiigations still  tivgaymtlle
\nparties cannot be   it is
\nassigned or  \ufb01ansfexee,
\nhaving    15(0) of
\nthe s.R.A\u00a2\u00a2    wrelief of Speci\ufb01c
\npexformar\ufb01ge  as stated by Section<\/p>\n
20 of the   an action for spec1\ufb01’ c<\/p>\n
\u00a2nforoen_\u00a71eht.of s1ich_. aVgree::ment.<\/p>\n
   T.  on hand, the 2*!’ plaintiff is not a<\/p>\n
: –   the 1″ plaintiff. He is not a natural<\/p>\n
% :%%r.-.c%:;ki;+ gg meL1st pxamtia”. The 2nd plaintiff is stated to be<\/p>\n
 th:\u00e9 .nacn.$::mce” of the 18* plainti\ufb02i But, the averments<\/p>\n
 mde  in the plaint indicate that the 1st plaintiff has<\/p>\n
Kxs~\u00ab3tC\u00bb.\\5 C\\;\u00bb’\u00a7 \u20ac33 \u00a3””<\/p>\n
 ” with his right under the agrwent Wm: the 2115<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
been completely overlooked by the courts below.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the decree directing speci\ufb01c perl’orm,anee–..ef<\/p>\n
the ageement in favour of the 2nd plaintiff, l <\/p>\n
there was “A110 privity of contract, in my  ll    <\/p>\n
perverse, illegal and contrary to <\/p>\n
32) No doubt in the <\/p>\n
averted that the 18* plaint\ufb01f  as
\nare ready and willing   pavltfof the
\nconnect. The learned   for the
\ndefendant  that there is
\nsui\ufb01eiexlt  to the readiness and<\/p>\n
willingness  of-~’l’tl1e plainti\ufb01s. However, the<\/p>\n
w’    v the 1″ plainti\ufb01} who is the<\/p>\n
  has proved his readiness and<\/p>\n
 Wlm his part of the contract by<\/p>\n
l”*\u00ab.__e\ufb01’e1’if’g psy the balance sale consideration and to<\/p>\n
t   sale deed ‘2 Reading ef the judments of the<\/p>\n
l.   belew indicate that both the courts below have<\/p>\n
  jalaeed emphasis only on the conduct of the defendant<\/p>\n
e\/<\/p>\n
56<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant, the 1″ plaintiff’ was an O\ufb01icer in the V.<\/p>\n
and he was financially sound. Therefore, it   .<\/p>\n
that the I” plainti\ufb01’ was capabke of   dd ” ~~ <\/p>\n
sale consideration. It is well-mttied    <\/p>\n
that he was always ready pay <\/p>\n
sale consideration, it is Knot fox”. in
\na suit of speci\ufb01c  count the
\nmoney before       if he
\nproduces  ”    \ufb01nancially
\nsound and     the balance sale
\noonsideta\ufb01oo.    txand, by the date of his<\/p>\n
evidence, ilfiltecf’.-.115′  retired’ from the Bank.<\/p>\n
,-    that he had cash of rupees ten<\/p>\n
“s;o tiv’enty..,t’eoesaed with him and that he had shares of<\/p>\n
 the  Rs.20,000\/- and also he had gold<\/p>\n
  o:fnaments;_ of oonsiderable value, no documentary<\/p>\n
   is produced to prove the said fact. It is<\/p>\n
 that even according to the 1st plainti\ufb01”, the<\/p>\n
 Lbalance amount was deposited in Court by the 29′!<\/p>\n
\ufb01x\u00bb<\/p>\n
58<\/span><\/p>\n
the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the 16*<\/p>\n
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part oftlie<\/p>\n
contract. Under these circumstances, the ” <\/p>\n
are not justi\ufb01ed in attaching much      <\/p>\n
alleged conduct of the clefendant-jg,    T. <\/p>\n
have made much about the   it<\/p>\n
and D5 holding that Exs. D4 135 iami,i\u00a7acit genuine
\ndocuments. PW.1    egteement
\nbetween him and the   However,<\/p>\n
he denies  tiie it Exs. D4<\/p>\n
and   produced by the defendant<\/p>\n
to contend.   is dabbling in Real<\/p>\n
 I?)statC_;f’Iiusir1eVss   was interested only in getting<\/p>\n
 :’Ev_ren if Exs. D4 and D5 are ignored, the<\/p>\n
” gyms 13* plaintiff both in the plaint and<\/p>\n
 V .111  clearly indimte that, he has parted with<\/p>\n
\u00ab  V’ his” interest under the agreement in favour of the 211*!<\/p>\n
  for consideration and therefore, there is 110<\/p>\n
 V  _  in holding that the 15* plaintii-‘fwas dabh\ufb01ng in<\/p>\n
g,\/~<\/p>\n
would be caused to the defendant if speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
performance is ordered.\n<\/p>\n
33) In 1987 (Supp) sec 340 [P.V. Josephfs<\/p>\n
Mathew Vs. N.KuruVila’s son], the Apex   _<\/p>\n
that, the Court should metictllously >_c;on$i\u20acit::\u00bb:   <\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case  the. <\/p>\n
the litigation should also ent\u00e91f”i{;to  d<\/p>\n
It is further held that the  dike see<\/p>\n
that it is not used. as   ‘appression to<\/p>\n
have\n<\/p>\n
34) ind_%A112ddd’3,9″9 6  2150 [ Kanshiram Vs. Om<\/p>\n
 aaif1d…_QtheI’s], the Apex Court in Para-5<\/p>\n
V”–haz\u00a7:.. bbs\u00a2r;fed_’ \u00a31fiu.s:<\/p>\n
g  “-Having regard to the facts of this case
\n  addressed by the learned
\n the question tha\ufb01 arises for<\/p>\n
 cmisiziexa\ufb01gn is: whether \ufb01t weuld be just, fair
\n ”  equitable to grant the decree for apeci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
v __pic;rformance? It is true that the rise in prices of<\/p>\n
 the property duxing the pcndcncy of the suit<\/p>\n
F may not be the sake corasiicration for refusing to
\ndecree the suit for spec\ufb01c performance. But it
\nis equally settled law that granting dccme for<\/p>\n
,&\/\/<\/p>\n
61<\/span><\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c performance of a contract of ixnmovable’ <\/p>\n
property is not automatic. It is one of  __
\nto be exercised on sound principles. Whe1a”—the ”  ‘<\/p>\n
Court gets into equity jurisdiction, it  ‘
\nguided by justice. equity, go0d\u00bb.conscktno\u00e9”a\u00a2d
\nfairness to both the parties. Considered-I
\nthis perspective, in View of the  mat” the .
\nrespondent himself had claimed a1t\u00e9InatiVc.rslief”
\nfor damages, we think  the Coraxtts
\nhave been well justi\ufb01ed
\ndecree for damages, instead Vcf ozxjcriszzg
\nperformance which ~ .\u00a7_avouId’ mb’o._ ‘ ‘  V
\nuJ:1\ufb01air. Under these” ci1?cn3_n3tii.*ices’,~ _we hold
\nthat the decree for  perforoxagnce is
\ninequitable and unjue’\u00a3.,to’vthcAa;)peZIa1ii:J*’ ‘<\/p>\n
35) In   {ova Mudaliar Vs.
\nRajabu    while considering
\nthe quefstioz\ufb01  to grant speci\ufb01c
\nperforma;oce ‘should  in favour of assigxee,
\nhas ob;s\u00a2rved’zhus 1:1; Paface\u00e99:<\/p>\n
” _   We are ofthe View that ifa case of the<\/p>\n
   could be regarded akin to<\/p>\n
 .  the relief of speci\ufb01c<\/p>\n
K pcrforiziarice may be refused; indeed
\n“eho1__11′<i-  refused."\n<\/p>\n
  51$) In the caee on hand, the 13* plairlti\ufb01’ having<\/p>\n
‘A     with his right under the agr\ufb01ent hl favour of<\/p>\n
  the 21″! plaintiff, would not su\ufb01er any hardship if the<\/p>\n
\u00e9y<\/p>\n
62<\/span><\/p>\n
speci\ufb01c performance is not granted in his favour. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, it is the common knowledge of every _O_i’1\u20ac<\/p>\n
that the value of the immovable properties -.4<\/p>\n
increasing. The agreement relates to the  <\/p>\n
are in 2009. Therefore, it is Ieasomibie to tide  V<\/p>\n
value of the property in question  <\/p>\n
by many folds. No doubt    a
\nsole circumstance ‘_  o,.._31’a;,i  gpeci\ufb01c
\nperformance. However, as’   Court in<\/p>\n
several deeisioije,’ also a relevant<\/p>\n
factor    while deciding the
\nquestion    the speci\ufb01c performance<\/p>\n
    regard to the facts and<\/p>\n
the ease, I am of the opinion that this<\/p>\n
 ‘ is note  which the chscre’ tion to grant relief of<\/p>\n
    ormanee should have been exercised in<\/p>\n
of the 211*! plaintiff, who is not a party to the<\/p>\n
it  Lagiweement and to whom, the defendant had not agreed<\/p>\n
\u00abe<\/p>\n
substantial question of law, the question whether the<\/p>\n
Court could, in law, exercise discretion at “for<\/p>\n
decreeing speci\ufb01c performance, could be a “~ <\/p>\n
iaw that substantially a\ufb01eets the parties   Q <\/p>\n
In the case on hand, in my opirtioxte _<\/p>\n
fact that the 13* plaintiff, Whoeeoteredttintn  <\/p>\n
with the defendant agreeing eeuxehetsgt’  ole
\nhas parted with his  e favour
\nof the 2nd plamufrr and….$ii1\u00a3:e~–tio privity of
\ncontract  eeeea one defendant, the
\nCourts below  exercised the discretion<\/p>\n
in favour of  ‘V255 .    the case do not warrant<\/p>\n
_.. V.exercis;\u00a7e’Vof sucf1’t1iscI’ef;ion at all. In this View of the<\/p>\n
  the Courts below are not justified in<\/p>\n
  of the plaintiffs and granting the relief<\/p>\n
 ‘ ‘of  in favour of the 2″‘ plain\ufb01ff. The<\/p>\n
e    of the Qmrts below are perverse, illegal and<\/p>\n
 to law and they cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
stated declining only from the year 2000 onwidiig.<\/p>\n
Keeping all these factors in mind, I am of   _<\/p>\n
that the defendant should be  to  V’: d o x <\/p>\n
sum, which would reflect both tho <\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- and the intcrest\u00bbthcareoii;._  V<\/p>\n
40) Having   t and
\ncircumstances of the     that the
\ninterest of jus\ufb01co  defendant is
\ndirected to   to the plaintiifs<\/p>\n
being 1*efI’ii1id”oftv1v1c’A  with “i\ufb01tcrest.<\/p>\n
41) &’I’\u00a31_    ‘the above discussion, the<\/p>\n
_..   judgment and decree of the<\/p>\n
  the suit for speci\ufb01c performance<\/p>\n
 plainti\ufb01’ is set aside. In modi\ufb01caizion<\/p>\n
 ‘ ‘of mad judgoiont of the Courts below, the suit of the<\/p>\n
  H for speci\ufb01c performance is dismissed.<\/p>\n
  ____”Ho\u00a7\u00a7:evor, alternative prayer for refund of the advance is<\/p>\n
  gnowod. The defendants are directed to deposit<\/p>\n
ff\ufb01g<\/p>\n
KGR”* _ V<\/p>\n
67<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.2,50,000\/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand)<\/p>\n
Trial Court within one month from today.
\nshall smk payment of the said axggount _\ufb01\ufb021\ufb01:  ” <\/p>\n
court. The amount said to have  <\/p>\n
plaintiffs towards the balanr e”  <\/p>\n
\nbercfundedtothem. %     \n\nIn the peculiar    of the\ncase, the parties  costs.\n\n'V    \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana III THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT mm!) nus ma 673 our or mncn ~ BEFORE ms HOIPBLE mt JUSTICE x N R.S.A. No. 245_oF BETWEEN: % ‘V 31119 K31Y31″1i P00ja1’thY=;_ _ _ ” W\/0. Krishna Poojarthy,”<Major, } ' ' […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4444,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009"},"wordCount":4444,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009","name":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-11T05:09:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-poojarthy-vs-p-purushotham-nayak-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalyani Poojarthy vs P Purushotham Nayak on 6 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}