{"id":80106,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-19T18:38:28","modified_gmt":"2016-02-19T13:08:28","slug":"venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H N Das<\/div>\n
INTHEHKHTCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALO\u00a7E.\n\nDATED THIS THE 29\"' DAY OF NOVEMBER,_ ;201.{r)u'.'_.'__j  \"  %\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  \u00e9  Y'\n\nRFA No. 459\/_2oo1A' \n\nBETWEEN:\nVENKATAGIRIYAPPA\n\nS\/O LATE YELLAPALLI _ \n\nREDDAPPA _  A\n\nAGED ABOUT BQYEAERS A   - :\n\nR\/AT BESTERE ROA1;D,_ _   4_  \" \nYELA_HANKA-     \n\nBANGALORE NOIRTH TALUI\"{7f ._ \u00a2 1; ...APPELLANT\n\n(By Sri YOGA BiAATavTA..s:TmHAA:,\"sR_.cOUNsEL EOR\n\nSri S.S\".GUTTAL; ~A.DV;)_  \n\nAND:\n\n  i'; \" v,1\u00a7iAM\"A1.,AMMA\n\n  sINGE\"BEcEA_sED BY LRS\n\n1(a) Suit sAB}'TiA\nW'\/0 YSRTNIVAS\n AGED 'ABOUT 63 YEARS\n----  A .AR\/ATNO. 15694-1,\n . L1G *\"'\"-'T MAIN ROAD, 2\"\" CROSS,\n NAGARBA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA\n\n BANGALORE -- 560 021.\n\n'K\n\n\n\n2\/\n\n\n\n\u00a5\\.)\n\n2. P.V.NIRMALKUMAR\nAGED ABOUT 52 YEARS\n\n3. P.V.MANJUNATI-I\nAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS\nR2 & R3 ARE SONS OF\nLATE PSVENUGOPAL SWAMY\n\nRx AT No.1 18, 4\"' MAIN ROAD,   \n\nCHAM ARAJPET,\nBANGALORE -- 18.\n\n4. P.V.UMAPATHI NAIDU\nAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS \nSINCE DECEASED BY  \n\n4(1)SmtESHWAR_}\"._  \n\nW\/O LATE ;i>.V;: IMARAI'HfNA1jjt\u00a7R A .\n\nAGEOAABSOET 215: YEARS\nOCC: I-I__OUS'LiW,}FE  A  \n\n4(2)CHETA,N'A_ ._ . _  A\nW\/O LATE P.V.UMAPA.,T7HI NAIDU\nAGED ABOUT 25' YEARS\n._0CC:._HQUSE  \u00ab\n\n * . S BOTZHXARE RESIDING No.1 .17\n\n'  AT?' MAIN, A8\"? CROSS,\n\n . 'A.CHAM'A_RA\u00a7'PET, BANGALORE-18.\n5. R SRINIVAS RAH;\n\nS\/O-. LA.fi'E -NfR.RA}U\n\n AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS\n\nA Ar:\/O BHAGYASHREE DEVELOPERS\n\nA 5S\" No.\" 134\/29, SHAKTI SR1\" NEW\n\n0\"'\n\n\n\nBEL ROAD, RMV 2\"\" STAGE,\n\nBANGALORE A560 094.  R_ESPONI\u00a7Ei\\'F:T:Svv..\n\n(By Sri.B.V.RA1\\\/IAMOORTHY, ADv., FOR R1_(A)\nR--2~\u00bb3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT I  . _  \nR--4I & 2 ARE SERVED BY WAY OFFAFER _. ' I\nPUBLICATION I '. I\n\nSriT.S.AMAR KUMAR, ADV., FOfi'\u00abM\/\u00a7\u00a7_I;AW'\u00a7'\u00a7IRS, \u00ab. \"\n\nINC, ADvS.,FOR R5) \nTHISRFA IS FILED W8 96 R\/W\/6\"w<IA:'R.VVI OF" AGAINST\nTHE ORDER & DECREE D"i';2A3_}03.20O1 PASSED IN\nO.S.NO.75l2\/92 ON THE FILE OF 'ifH.E"*--}_{Iv.I AD_DL.CITY CIVL\nJUDGE, BANGALORE.    .  =\n\nTHIS RFA .COMIN:G FOR7IIEAR;ING THIS DAY,\nTHE COURT DELIVERED_'1"HE. FOLLOWING;\n\nThis appeal is di\u00abrecteLI the judgment and decree dated\n\n23.03.2C\u00a7JI' in  '751':;\/I992 passed by 11"' Additional City\n\nV"  .I_Uiige,."'BAangaI.Ore, dismissing the Suit for decree of permanent\n\ninjiinci-i'On a'rId\\'SvpeCific  performance.\n\n.\/\n\n\n\n2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the<\/pre>\n
defendants before the Trial Court. in this judgment, for convenience,<\/p>\n
the parties are referred to their status before the trial Courtw .i  _._ if <\/p>\n
3. 11 is the case of plaintiff thatdefendants'”e\u00a7\u00a7ecuited7an *<\/p>\n
agreement of sale on 23.12.1988 as per   to seil:l”~thiei1vi_:<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property for a totalii_c’c-risideratiori of<\/p>\n
Under Ex.P.1 the defendants havey__.ac’i:nowledged”the reeeipt of
\nadvance amount of Rs.20,000f\u00bb “andide1V\u00a7–ve.,red’i.possession of schedule
\nproperty and also_”so_rne  iporiiginaln doeuments in part<\/p>\n
performance of the lagree1nen’t.yo17 .sa}e..’Further it is agreed that Within<\/p>\n
a period of years th.e”en1i.re”—-s_ale transaction is to be completed.<\/p>\n
V Subsequently the “plaintiff paid an additional advance amount of<\/p>\n
 1ie.11.0.i000{Li.en_l:10.11.1990 as per Ex.P.3. Thereafter on 10.06.1992<\/p>\n
the_detfendanits.reeeived additional advance amount of Rs.20,000\/–<\/p>\n
and a\u00a71’eed=to “e-ittend the period of agreement by another one year<\/p>\n
 i”Vfrorn+!:hat date. Despite repeated requests, demands and lawyer’s<\/p>\n
.;.’ne\u00b01vsee’ ‘en 10.09.1992 as per Ex.P.8(a), the defendants failed to<\/p>\n
,…..\n<\/p>\n
?\\1<\/p>\n
\/”\n<\/p>\n
perform their part of obligation and on the other hand triedltato<\/p>\n
dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule pr0pertyr;'”Tll <\/p>\n
the plaintiff initially filed O.S. No. 7512\/1992 againstMgfpwwglefendants ”  <\/p>\n
on 21.11.1992 for decree of permanent,’inju.nctijon–_ .0<\/p>\n
defendants from interfering with 4_posse$s_ioii andyelnjeyrncntll of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property. In this “75_l2\/ defendants
\nwere placed ex–parte. Duriiilghhe  suit lzlaefore the
\nTrial Court the plaintiff  seeking
\namendment of  of  prayer for
\ndecree of  agreement of sale dated
\n23.12.1980. fo__r– ainendrnent was allowed on<\/p>\n
31.051.997.00  Trial an ex-parte decree on<\/p>\n
V 17.06.lf)9’7.s..Aggrieve_dl lhy this ex–parte decree of Trial Court the<\/p>\n
 No. 590\/ 1997 and the same came to be<\/p>\n
  Further this Court in M.F.A. No.<\/p>\n
 .1027\/2000order dated 06.03.2000 set aside the ex-parte<\/p>\n
if    decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for<\/p>\n
pfresh disposal in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
p–..\n<\/p>\n
i”\\t<\/p>\n
J”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. After remand from this Court, the defendants filed written<\/p>\n
statement inter alia contending that subsequent to the agreement of<\/p>\n
sale dated 23.12.1988 there came to be another agreement v1\/I<\/p>\n
the parties on 10.06.1992 as per Ex.D.l renewingllthe H<\/p>\n
agreement and enhancing the sale consid::’ration\u00abfro–rn  <\/p>\n
to Rs.4,50,000\/~\u00ab. On the date of second Allagreernent lid<\/p>\n
plaintiff has paid additional advancelo\u00abf:Rs.20,l)U0[{  thlevpsarne is
\nacknowledged by the defendants  Thellidevfendants
\ncontend that plaintiff, by  agreement –\n<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1_, has fi1.edl’i’the…snit and’-tth_erefore the same is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed. The defendantssltttrfner’contend that the suit is barred by<\/p>\n
limitation and the plainltilff was not ready and willing to perform his<\/p>\n
 part Qffllthe On these grounds the defendants opposed the<\/p>\n
 Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed<\/p>\n
the following issites for consideration.<\/p>\n
 A. ,1:  Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants agreed<\/p>\n
to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.One<\/p>\n
\ufb02u<\/p>\n
iii.\n<\/p>\n
iv.\n<\/p>\n
vi.\n<\/p>\n
lakh and an agreement of sale dated 23.12.1988 has<\/p>\n
been executed?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintiff proves that he <\/p>\n
advance sale consideration of  the <\/p>\n
defendants?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the plaintiff: _proves3_th’at he <\/p>\n
possession and enjoymelnttof’ the suit’proiperty?3E
\nWhether the pil4a’intiff.’?proves\u00ab._V_thvatv.he has been ever
\nready and willing to perforrn contract?<\/p>\n
‘Whe:thei’;:jp.tlie piaintiff pi’oves’xltha–t=’ he is entitled for<\/p>\n
specific p.erforn2.ari’ee of the contract?<\/p>\n
ll Whethertheltlplaintiif proves that he is entitled to the<\/p>\n
l ‘ i_permaaentinjunction sought?\n<\/p>\n
t  vii.\n<\/p>\n
 :W_h”ether the defendants proves that the suit is barred<\/p>\n
 :”t’,y_’1irriitation?\n<\/p>\n
vi ii.\n<\/p>\n
“ix;\n<\/p>\n
 ‘Whether the defendants prove that if the suit is decreed<\/p>\n
V  they will be put to more hardship?\n<\/p>\n
What decree or order?\n<\/p>\n
\u00bb-M.\n<\/p>\n
\/ “N<\/p>\n
5. Before the Trial Court the plaintiff examined himself as<\/p>\n
P.W.l and got marked Ex.P.l to Ex.P.27. The first defendant got<\/p>\n
examined herseif as D.W.l and got marked Ex.D.1. The Trial_Cour_t_<\/p>\n
on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary’.evi.de–nce\u00a5-___ _<\/p>\n
held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of agreev-mientllof sale  if <\/p>\n
dated 23.12.1988 and payment of advance anioluntlllefii<\/p>\n
Further the Trial Court held that tthe..,_plaintiffliwas 1liCili’:'[:6E1.dVyH and<\/p>\n
willing to perform his part of 0bligatl:(5ii.,:\u00a7lI1\u00a3l\u00bb theiisuitfis barred by
\nlimitation. Consequently thel._inip;I.gined~ judgment the Trial<\/p>\n
Court dismj’sse’d.  suiltiifiyf plaintiff. He’nce, this appeal.<\/p>\n
6. Sri. C’\ufb02oganarasinallap.-‘teamed Senior Counsel for the<\/p>\n
” pl,ainti.fficon.tends, thatllth’e”‘question of limitation is a mixed question<\/p>\n
 and”factl,lThe’:.Trial Court allowed the amendment of plaint<\/p>\n
T if   permitting the ‘plaintiff to incorporate additional prayer for decree of<\/p>\n
  specific performance of agreement of sale and the same relates back<\/p>\n
  t”ei”the_ date of institution of the suit. As such, the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
  Vpiainltiff is within the period of limitation. The Trial Court, without<\/p>\n
2–..\n<\/p>\n
& Va–J<\/p>\n
l 0<\/p>\n
committed an error in not considering this oral evidence and
\ncontents of written agreement — EX.P.l. Reliance is placed the<\/p>\n
following decisions.\n<\/p>\n
a. lshwardas Vs. The State of Madliya. pPre_desli1″‘and oVthe:r,s,7.,<\/p>\n
AIR 1979 SC 55E
\nb. ML. Shankaranarayana’Rand\/ps. Co1’poratio”n  City
\nof Bangalore, 1973 (II) <\/p>\n
7. Per contra, Sri. A_rnart~~.l{u’mar,”‘-\u00ablearn-ed counsel for<\/p>\n
for respondent :’conten(1,__tl1at.’5 years later to the filing of the<\/p>\n
suit the plaintiff fi1ed~..thei.applic:ation for amendment of the plaint. It<\/p>\n
V was o41i’3l..05.lV99’Z application for amendment was allowed<\/p>\n
 comierting’ the  for injunction into one for decree of specific<\/p>\n
peffo’rrnance”ef__aga*eement of sale. Therefore the suit for the purpose<\/p>\n
9 . of decree for specific performance was filed only on 31.05.1997. As<\/p>\n
 3.1_._05.l’997 the suit for specific performance is barred by<\/p>\n
 It is further contended that in the notice as per Ex.P.8(a)<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
dated 10.09.1992 and also in the plaint before the Trial Court and<\/p>\n
even after the amendment of the plaint the plaintiff has suppre\u00e9sed<\/p>\n
the second agreement -\u00bb Ex.D.l dated 10.06.1992.  <\/p>\n
Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff was not rea.{1giv:\/lg’   0 <\/p>\n
to perform his part of obligation. Learnedjbcounslelfforgthe’de1endant3_T <\/p>\n
support the impugned judgment. of_t.he Tidal’*Court.”T-tellialncelig <\/p>\n
placed on the following decisions.\n<\/p>\n
a. Tarlok Singh Vs.’X(\u00a7jgy I<'jnm;gfitsa_m\u00a7a1=wa1, (1996) 8 sec
\n367     . 9 ., .\n<\/p>\n
b. .V’is’liwar:1hhai\u00a7:_3  Lax.mina.rayan (dead)
\nlfhroi1gh’L.l?ls*llzi11dVanother,._.(2001) 6 scc 163
\nc.’ Man”‘Kaur V(dr:cea,s:e’d.– LRS) Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha,<\/p>\n
”  2.0:I0..i_AiR ‘SCW-6’i 98
\n81 .Heard.VVVarguments on both the side and perused the entire
\nanpeal pap\u00a2rsl;’.j ..  V V 1<\/p>\n
!e\\J”\\..\n<\/p>\n
\ufb02”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. The suit is based on the agreement of sale dated 23.12.1988<\/p>\n
Ex.P.l and the advance receipt dated .E0.06.l992 as per <\/p>\n
These two documents are not in dispute. In Ex.P.8 (a) M thc~.la\\t4\u00a7fe1*.7:;_iA’ <\/p>\n
notice dated 10.09.1992 it is specifically stated that afterbtlze   9 <\/p>\n
payment of second advance amount as per ‘def’enclants_ f<\/p>\n
failed to perform. their part of obligation. Therefore under<\/p>\n
plaintiff called upon the defendants. _performip_iA their ‘apart of
\nobligation. Since the defe11d_a1i.ts failed Vi’to._ perform their part of
\nobligation the plaintiff filed thesuitVon._i2  the plaint it is
\nspecifically stated wasireatiy_ia’nidwilling to perform his
\npart of obligation Aar’;r:\u00a7_defend’a.r._1ts-were.’ avoiding to perform their part<\/p>\n
of obligation.   l5.W.l deposes that he was ready<\/p>\n
and wi};l.1.ng…to perform his part of obligation and it was the<\/p>\n
:”V.Vdefencla11ts “eyaded to perform their part of obligation and<\/p>\n
therefor-e.he’ 1ia\u00bbs.f11\u00e9;a the suit.<\/p>\n
  +1 .10. Though the suit was filed on 21.11.1992 :1: was only for<\/p>\n
._p’r:_.ari’c. injunction and there was no prayer for a decree of specific<\/p>\n
-‘-x
\nrxl<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
performance of agreement of sale. it was only on 28.0i.l997l”t1ie<\/p>\n
plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the A’ <\/p>\n
incorporate additional prayer for decree of specific of <\/p>\n
agreement of sale. it was on 31.05.1997 the  .9<\/p>\n
application filed by the plaintiff ppe1>;n__ittingl”tQ_i’amendthe _n1_eint9_i’;hy”<\/p>\n
incorporating additional prayer for decree:’of_specific._Vpert’orriiance of
\nagreement of sale. Learned  for  contends that the
\nprayer for decree of pspecificA.perforrriance  to have been
\nincorporated in  the suit and
\ntherefore the    of this contention<\/p>\n
reliance  placVed.”_oy_n’*.ta’tjudgrnent of this Court in M.L.<\/p>\n
Shankaranarayana Rao Vs.’ Corporation of the City of Bangalore,<\/p>\n
1973  itwherein it is held that amendment relates<\/p>\n
  bacl<,t_o' theidatep or institution of the suit. on the other hand learned<\/p>\n
co'uns'e.l__dei5efidants relying on a judgment of the Supreme<\/p>\n
 Court in th_e'cas;e of Tarlok Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal,<\/p>\n
9' :'9.v4."'*(fl.9996}__8 SCC 367 contends that the suit for perpetual injunction is<\/p>\n
 diff::rent"frorn the suit for specific performance. The suit for specific<\/p>\n
_..,
\n\u20ac"-.1<\/p>\n
\ufb02"\n<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
performance claimed by way of amendment to the plaint will be<\/p>\n
deemed to have been instituted only when the Court order allowing<\/p>\n
the amendment and it will not relate back to the date of ” 3<\/p>\n
suit. Further the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwa_mbh_ar  <\/p>\n
others Vs. Laxminarayan (dead) throughliiisilaridv another; <\/p>\n
SCC I63 held that the amendment _thoua
\nrelate back to the date of filing  and  of
\nlimitation. In View of the lawpdeclaredlipbghlthelplbttpremeCourt in the
\ntwo decisions referred to   the learned
\nSingle Judge of this  inilthe opfiillj\/ll.i;.”Shankaranarayana Rao
\nVs. oi’v.’th.e__fl\u00a3Ceity\u00ablol”l~.B_angalore is no more a good law.<\/p>\n
Therefore thesuit for.specificperformance filed by the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
deemedito ehave  filed” on 31.05.1997 when the Trial Court<\/p>\n
  allowed the pplaijntiff to amend the plaint to incorporate the prayer for<\/p>\n
de’cree’___of”‘spevc_ifie:’performance. If the date of suit for specific<\/p>\n
 _perforii1anc~e iisvtlaken on 31.05.1997, then the same is barred by<\/p>\n
” ” 2 l”li4mitati_on.\n<\/p>\n
r-..w<\/p>\n
3″\n<\/p>\n
h. properly bhialde i’can1nio’t V<\/p>\n
11. In Ex.P.4 – the receipt executed by the defendants<\/p>\n
acknowledging the additional. advance from the piaintiff  2.<\/p>\n
have agreed to extend the period of agreement of sale by-\u00ablanotlieiri  0<\/p>\n
year from that date. If that is so, the periodmof one ‘i{ear\u00ab s:ijec_ifi:ed–:i’n <\/p>\n
Ex.P.4 will expire on 09.06.1993.’ The lperiod’ of  <\/p>\n
09.06.1993 will expire on 08.06.199’6:g:l’The  to
\namend the plaint incorporate p’t’ajte’r.e..;1Aecreel Viloflspecific
\nperformance was on 31.05 admitted facts the
\nsuit of the plaintiff  the finding<\/p>\n
recorded by theTri’;ti_E;”ottrt hol.ditig–.t:1iat”the suit of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
barred by ‘limita.t.iorii:3 .snp;)01’ted -by admitted evidence On record and<\/p>\n
the same is iri._accordanc’e}wi,.th’*–theJl.aw declared by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in the t;ie<':i3.ions referred to Supra. I find no justifiable ground to<\/p>\n
in  inlteifere  thiefinding of the Trial Court.<\/p>\n
""le2i"A'dmiittedly in the legal notice — EX.P.8(a) and in the<\/p>\n
pIaint.__the  has not pleaded anything with regard to the<\/p>\n
ix".-'.._'S'GCOHd agi-cement dated 10.06.1992 as per Ex.D. 1. But P.W.l in his<\/p>\n
?\\–r<\/p>\n
dot.\n<\/p>\n
CI’OSS-CX21I’I1iI’1\u00a31[lOl1 admits his signature on Ex.D.1.. P.W.l pleads<\/p>\n
ignorance as to under what circumstances he affixed his signature on<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1. Further P.W.l says that out of friendship he has <\/p>\n
signature on }3x.D.l. This evidence on record clearly establishyes  if<\/p>\n
fact that the plaintiff admitted Ex.D.1. A i’eadi’n\u00abg ofi..&Ex_:,D;ipl:’ specifies<\/p>\n
that parties have agreed to enhance the”.sal’\u00bb?,iconsidera*ti.on <\/p>\n
Rs..1,00,000\/– to Rs.4,50,000\/–. Wheifthe parties haf\u00bb;ei”a_gi?\u00a2’\u00a2~;d to
\nenhance the sale consideration’ to  then  ‘necessary
\nfor the plaintiff to plead and prove he  and willing to<\/p>\n
pay the balance  consiidenation  Neither in<\/p>\n
Ex.P.8 the lawyeir\ufb01\ufb01notice  the plaint nor in the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.l he hasastatedithat  was-ready and willing to pay the balance<\/p>\n
sale con’s1deration”‘ofiiRs.4i’i)0,000\/–. In the absence of any such<\/p>\n
   eyhlence the Trial Court rightly concluded that the<\/p>\n
plaiiitiff   and willing to perform his part of obligation.<\/p>\n
V _Againi”this of the Trial Court is supported by evidence on<\/p>\n
“record_and the same is in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
5’–.\u00a3
\n(ii<\/p>\n
13. It is not in dispute between that there came to be an<\/p>\n
agreement of sale on 23.12.1988 as per Ex.P.l between the partiescplz<\/p>\n
is relevant to extract Clause — 2 of the agreement of  <\/p>\n
and the same reads as under:   _ __   ._
\n“The VENDORS have th’i’s~–day–l_4 pot V <\/p>\n
PURCHASER vacant physical “poss’essilonlic\u00bb.of~   <\/p>\n
schedule land and parted withthe avais_lvable title
\nof the schedule land to the lPrU:RCHASER_  [‘3 plairt\ufb02
\nperformance of Agreernent tc-* s’elll_:  _i}.’UR(lIlHASER
\nacknowledges the   <\/p>\n
14′, As aglarn’st…the.tcontents of a written document _ Ex.P.1<\/p>\n
there is no other rnaterialori .record. to show that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
put in possession ofthelplaint schedule property in part performance<\/p>\n
 of agreemenlt sale. Except the oral interested testimony of D.W.1<\/p>\n
st’aIin’g__that a”ct_t_1a’1:;’physica1 possession was not handed over to the<\/p>\n
V _p1a.intiff thereisll no other evidence on record. On the other hand<\/p>\n
 RV’! 41 __ in  evidence deposed that subsequent to the agreement of<\/p>\n
l.l_y1~_salel\u00a5Ei<.P.3 he developed the schedule property by investing 21 sum<\/p>\n
r-~.lh"\n<\/p>\n
an<\/p>\n
of Rs.90,000\/\u00bb. P.W.l further deposed that he has dug a borewell in<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property by investigating money. Thisz\ufb01oral<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.l is not seriously disputed and challen.ged_p’iri’ <\/p>\n
cross–exarnination. The Trial Court without consideringiithe ‘contents <\/p>\n
of Ex.P.1 and the oral evidence of the pa;=jties co’ii2niii_tted  ei:ro__r”iri__ f<\/p>\n
holding that the plaintiff is not in possess.ionA oi’? the pl\ufb02uilit Vschedjulevl<\/p>\n
property. The reasoning of the Trialitloxurt_thatviiu-adder’v’the:'{3eneral
\nPower of Attorney — Ex.Pi;2″‘idate\u00ab.3li  plaintiff was
\npermitted to look after the plaint_vschedulefyppropei\ufb01f subsequently
\nthe same is revoked’ iawyerisiioitice as per Ex.P.l2
\nand therefore ~..p_ossession of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is contrary to.  evidence on record. Therefore<\/p>\n
the finditgigof the  Courton issue No. 3 is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
 reasons stated above, the following;\n<\/p>\n
0 R D E R<\/p>\n
 A. ,.l,. “‘”l”he appeal is partly allowed.<\/p>\n
-v-i.\n<\/p>\n
N!<\/p>\n
U<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
i9<\/p>\n
11. The impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court<\/p>\n
dismissing the suit of plaintiff for decree ofjspecific<\/p>\n
performance of agreement of sale is hereby ;coni’irr.nied._.__ T <\/p>\n
III. The judgment and decree of the TrialCojuI’tt.jin:s.ofar <\/p>\n
it relates to finding on issue Nosaf: and 6 are’hereby_ f<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
IV. The suit of the plaintilffor  permanent
\ninjunction   and also
\nrespondent  decreed’-restraining them
\n    possession and
\n schedule property except by<\/p>\n
T
\njg   The  jointly or severally or respondent No. 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 .j_a.lone are at liberty to work out their remedy to recover<\/p>\n
 :il”poss~fess.ion of the plaint schedule property in<\/p>\n
 accordance with law, if they are so entitled.<\/p>\n
sci)-\n<\/p>\n
ll   ‘T “L.Rsl3o1 120:0. JUQGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 Author: H N Das INTHEHKHTCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALO\u00a7E. DATED THIS THE 29″‘ DAY OF NOVEMBER,_ ;201.{r)u’.’_.’__j ” % BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE \u00e9 Y’ RFA No. 459\/_2oo1A’ BETWEEN: VENKATAGIRIYAPPA S\/O LATE YELLAPALLI _ REDDAPPA _ A AGED ABOUT BQYEAERS A – : R\/AT BESTERE ROA1;D,_ […]<\/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-80106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - 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\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-19T13:08:28+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T13:08:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2560,\"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\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T13:08:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - 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\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-19T13:08:28+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T13:08:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":2560,"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\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010","name":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T13:08:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkatagiriyappa-vs-smt-v-kamalamma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkatagiriyappa vs Smt V Kamalamma on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/80106","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=80106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}