Sri. D J Hanumanthappa vs Smt. Rudramma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3756 Kant

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

              R.S.A. NO.366 OF 2022 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. D.J. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE D. JANARDHANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS,
R/O H.D. PURA VILLAGE,
AT POST, HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

AND:

1.     SMT. RUDRAMMA
       D/O LATE REDDIKARIYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

2.     SMT. GIRIJAMMA
       D/O LATE REDDIKARIYIAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

3.     SRI. KESHAVA REDDI
       S/O LATE REDDIKARIYAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

       RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3
       R/O H.D. PURA VILLAGE AT POST,
       HOLALKERE TALUK,
       CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577557
                           2




4.   SRI. SHREENATH
     S/O JAYAPPA REDDI,
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     AGRICULTURIST,
     R/O DEVARABELAGERI VILLAGE,
     HARIHAR TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002.

5.   SRI. BASAVARAJA
     S/O JAYAPPAREDDI,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     AGRICULTURIST,
     R/O DEVARAVELAGERI VILLAGE,
     HARIHARA TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002

6.   SRI. MAHESHWARA REDDI
     S/O JAYYAPPA REDDI,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     AGRICULTURIST,
     R/O DEVARABELAGERI VILLAGE,
     HARIHARA TALUK,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002

7.   SMT. SHWETHA
     W/O CHANDRASHEKAR SALEGOUDRA,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O KONNURU VILLAGE,
     NARAGUNDA TALUK,
     GADAG DISTRICT-582206

8.   SRI. JAYADEVAREDDI
     S/O LATE REDDIKARIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

9.   SMT. SHASHIKALA
     S/O LATE REDDIKARIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE
     R/O H.D. PURA VILLAGE AT POST,
                              3




        HOLALKERE TALUK,
        CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 05.01.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.33/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOLALKERE, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 14.11.2019 PASSED IN OS No.155/2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, HOLALKERE.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.155/2012 has

filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the

correctness of the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2019

passed by the Principal Civil Judge at Holalkere (henceforth

referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S. No.155/2012 which was

confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere (henceforth

referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. No.33/2019.

Both the Courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to

the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale

dated 07.01.1994.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S. No.155/2012 was filed for

specific performance of an agreement of sale dated

07.01.1994, by which the father of the defendants had

allegedly agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale

consideration of Rs.1,32,000/- and had received a sum of

Rs.60,000/- on the date of the agreement, a sum of

Rs.50,000/- on 14.05.1994 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- on

24.08.1994. It was claimed that only a sum of Rs.2,000/-

was due to the father of the defendants. The plaintiff

alleged that the father of the defendants had failed to

conclude the sale transaction by receiving the balance sale

consideration. Thereafter on 21.06.2012, the plaintiff

issued a notice of demand calling upon the defendants to

execute the sale deed and conclude the sale transaction.

On the failure of the defendants to comply with the

demand of the plaintiff, the present suit for specific

performance was filed.

4. The defendants contested the suit and claimed

that their father had not executed the agreement of sale.

They claimed that the suit property was their ancestral

property and that they had 1/7th share each in the said

property. They claimed that there was no need for their

father to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and that

during the life time of their father, the plaintiff did not take

any steps to call upon their father to conclude the

transaction. They also contended that the suit was barred

by limitation and that the agreement in question was not

registered in accordance with law. They also denied the

signature of their father found on the agreement of sale.

They claimed that they came to know about the agreement

only on 06.06.2012 when the plaintiff filed an application

before the Tahsildar for change of the revenue entries

which they objected. The defendants alleged that the

plaintiff had approached the Court with unclean hands.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court

framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the father of defendants has agreed to sell the suit land for his family necessity and benefit for a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- and on the same day i.e., 7.01.1994 executed agreement of sale by receiving Rs.60,000/- as advance and subsequently also received sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/-?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether the defendants prove that, suit is barred by limitation?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

5. What order or decree?

6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he

examined the attesting witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and

marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. The defendant

No.5 was examined as D.W.1, and he marked documents

as Exs.D-1 to D-18.

7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was inconsistent in his

statement about the execution of the sale agreement as

well as the description of the suit property. The Trial Court

noticed the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff and

held that what was agreed to be sold was not the property

in question. It also held that the plaintiff did not take any

steps to prove the signatures of Reddi Kariyappa found on

the agreement of sale. The Trial Court, therefore, held

that the plaintiff had not proved the lawful execution of the

agreement of sale dated 07.01.1994. This apart, the Trial

Court noticed the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff

had repeatedly asked Reddi Kariyappa to conclude the sale

transaction. The Trial Court held that the father did not

comply the demand, yet, the plaintiff did not take any

steps to file a suit for specific performance within the time

prescribed after Reddi Kariyappa refused to perform his

part of the contract. The Trial Court held that the suit filed

in the year 2012 was therefore barred by the Law of

Limitation and hence dismissed the suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First

Appellate Court.

9. The First Appellate Court secured the records

of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties,

framed points for consideration and after considering the

oral and documentary evidence held that the recitals in the

agreement of sale disclosed that the total sale

consideration was paid to Reddi Kariyappa. However, the

plaintiff had failed to take steps for conclusion of the sale

transaction. The First Appellate Court noticed the

inconsistent statements made by the plaintiff as well as his

witnesses which indicated that the suit property was not

agreed to be sold under the agreement of sale. The First

Appellate Court also held that the time for filing a suit for

specific performance commenced on 24.08.1994 i.e.,

within three years from the date of payment of full

consideration and that the plaintiff must have obtained a

sale deed or he must have initiated appropriate steps. The

First Appellate Court therefore held that the suit filed by

the plaintiff was barred by Law of Limitation.

10. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree

of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed.

11. The learned counsel for plaintiff / appellant

submitted that when the plaintiff had paid substantial

portion of sale consideration and Ex.P-1 indicated that

defendant would execute the sale deed as and when

demanded, the time prescribed for seeking for specific

performance commenced from the date when Reddi

Kariyappa refused to perform his part of the contract. In

the present case, the learned counsel contended that such

a denial came only in the year 2001 only when the notice

of demand was issued. He also submitted that since the

substantial portion of sale consideration was paid, the Trial

Court as well as the First Appellate Court must have

decreed the suit for specific performance.

12. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have

returned a finding that the sale agreement dated

07.01.1994 was not executed by Reddi Kariyappa in favour

of the plaintiff. This is based on the appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence. The finding recorded by the

Trial Court and the First Appellate Court clearly

demonstrates that the suit property was not the subject

matter of the sale agreement dated 07.01.1994. Even

otherwise, the sale agreement was allegedly executed on

07.01.1994 but was sought to be enforced in the year

2012 i.e., on 03.09.2012, that too after the death of Reddi

Kariyappa. There is no explanation for the delay in filing

the suit.

13. Be that as it may, since the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court have recorded a categorical finding

about the non-execution of the agreement of sale by Reddi

Kariyappa in favour of the plaintiff, this Court does not feel

it appropriate to upset the said finding of fact in this

Regular Second Appeal. As no substantial question of law

arises for consideration in this appeal, the same is

dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm