Karnataka High Court
Bommalinganaika vs Nagaiah on 25 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1031/2007 (SP)
BETWEEN:
BOMMALINGANAIKA,
S/O. MUDDLANAIKA
DEAD BY HIS L.RS.
1. PUTTAMMA
W/O. LATE BOMMALINGANAIKA,
53 YEARS,
R/O: MANU VINAKURIKE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK-572 101
2. DODDAKAMAKKA
D/O. LATE BOMMALINGANAIKA
W/O. CHANNAGANGAIAH,
33 YEARS,
R/O: DASALAKUNTE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK-572 101
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.S. RAJAGOPAL SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
2
AND :
NAGAIAH
S/O. DODDANARASAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
R/O: JUNJARAMANAHALLI,
BANDIHALLI,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 101
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2006 PASSED
IN R.A. NO.431/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 23.07.1997 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.67/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.), KORATAGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the Legal Representatives of
the original defendant.
2. Nagaiah, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking to
enforce a contract of sale dated 23.11.1983, which
was TO THE effect that the suit property should be
sold for a sum of Rs.8,000/- and a sum of Rs.7,500/-
had been received as advance and remaining sum of
Rs.500/- was to be paid at the time of registration.
3. It was stated that since the defendant was
dodging the execution of Sale Deed, the suit came to
be instituted.
4. The defendant entered appearance and
contested the suit. The execution of the agreement
was denied. It was also stated that the suit was
barred by limitation. The plea put forth by the
defendant was that he had a daughter called
Doddakamakka (the second appellant herein) and she
had persuaded him to file an application to the
Tahasildar to get the benefit of an old age pension and
in that regard she has requested him to affix
signatures on two blank papers with an assurance that
she would be able to secure the old age pension. It
was stated that believing the words of his daughter,
he has executed the stamp paper, but was later
shocked to realize that the said document was being
misused. It was also stated that his daughter had
married one Channagangaiah without his consent and
the defendant had strongly opposed the marriage and
did not allow her to reside with him and taking
advantage of the signatures which she has obtained
on the blank papers and in order to take vengeance
against the defendant, the Agreement of Sale had
been set up.
5. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence
adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had failed to prove that there was a contract
of sale executed in his favour and that the possession
was delivered to him. The Trial Court accordingly
dismissed the suit.
6. In appeal, the Appellate Court on re-appreciation
of the evidence, disagreed with the findings of the
Trial Court. The Appellate Court found that the
Agreement of Sale was executed and took note of the
fact that the daughter of the defendant had herself
conceded that Agreement of Sale had been executed
when she was examined as PW2. The Appellate
Court, accordingly, reversed the decree of the Trial
Court and proceeded to decree the suit.
7. This appeal was admitted to consider the
following question of law:
"Whether in view of the dismissal of the
suit by the trial Court, whether the
appellate Court was right in not considering
the plea of limitation, readiness and
willingness, ingredients under Section 20 of
Specified Relief Act?"
8. It is not in dispute that the defendant had affixed
signatures on the stamp papers though he contended
that the signatures were affixed on blank stamp
papers. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the
evidence has come to the conclusion that the
Agreement of Sale had indeed been executed by the
defendant and this position was clear from the very
admission of his own daughter who was examined as
PW-2.
9. The fact that the daughter of the defendant
chose to admit execution and deposed on behalf of
the plaintiff was itself proof of the execution of the
Agreement of Sale and that there was an intent to
convey the suit schedule property.
10. In my view, this finding is based on the
appreciation of evidence and not available for scrutiny
in second appeal. The Appellate Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that possession had been
delivered and plaintiff had proved his readiness and
willingness by issuing a legal notice. In my view, the
finding recorded regarding limitation and readiness
and willingness is just and proper.
11. Admittedly, no plea was taken regarding any
undue hardship to the defendant and no evidence has
also been let in. When the daughter of the plaintiff
admitted the execution of the agreement, the exercise
of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 would not arise.
12. The question of law is thus answered against the
appellants and the second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sbs*
