Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Sajjad Sait vs Sri P Venkatachalam on 14 December, 2023
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A NO.808 OF 2023 (SP)
C/W
R.S.A No.1358 OF 2023 (SP)
R.S.A No.1372 OF 2023 (SP)
IN RSA NO.808/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANJINAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI.CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LACHHANKKA
SINDE DEAD BY LRs
SRI. CHALAPATHI
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. SRI.LASHMINARAYANA,
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
5. SMT.PADMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
2
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF CHALURU VILLAGE,
HINDUPUR TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH-515211
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NAGESH.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. MOHAMMED SAJJAD SAIT,
S/O LATE J.ABDUL RAHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O NO.798, 10TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
BENGALURU-560045
2 . SRI.P.VENKATACHALAM,
S/O LATE P.SUBBARAMAIHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT THYAGARAJA COLONY,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-561208
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N.RAJESHWARA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT.POONAM S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.51/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA.
PARTLY DECREEING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED IN
3
OS NO.237/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
IN RSA NO.1358/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMED SAJJAD SAIT
S/O LATE J ABDUL RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.798, 10TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-45.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.N.RAJESHWARA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT.POONAM S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI P VENKATACHALAM
S/O LATE P SUBBARAMAIAH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT THYAGARAJA COLONY,
GOWRIBIDANUR-561208.
2. SMT ANJINAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
3. CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA
S/O LACHCHANKKA,
DEAD BY LRS,
CHALAPATHI,
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4
4. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
5. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6. SMT PADMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 6 WERE THE
RESIDENTS OF CHOLURU VILLAGE,
HINDUPURA TALUK(ANDHRA PRADESH)
NEW ADDRESS PURSUANT TO
CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT:
RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 TO 6 ARE CURRENTLY
R/IN CHOLURU VILLAGE,
HINDUPURA TALUK,
SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT,
(EARLIER ANANTHPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2023
PASSED IN RA No. 51/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED IN
5
OS No. 237/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
IN RSA NO.1372/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMED SAJJAD SAIT
S/O LATE J ABDUL RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.798, 10TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
PILLANNA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-45.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.N.RAJESHWARA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT.POONAM S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI P VENKATACHALAM
S/O LATE P SUBBARAMAIAH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT THYAGARAJA COLONY,
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN
2. SMT ANJINAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
3. CHALAPATHI,
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6
5. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6. SMT PADMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 WERE THE
RESIDENTS OF CHOLURU VILLAGE,
HINDUPURA TALUK(ANDHRA PRADESH)
NEW ADDRESS PURSUANT TO
CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT:
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 ARE CURRENTLY
R/IN CHOLURU VILLAGE,
HINDUPURA TALUK,
SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT,
(EARLIER ANANTHPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR R, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2023
PASSED IN RA No. 105/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED IN
OS No. 237/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.11.2023, COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
JUDGMENT
These three captioned second appeals arise out
of suit for specific performance in O.S.No.237/2006.
2. RSA.No.808/2023 is filed by defendants 1
to 6 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in R.A.No.51/2018 wherein defendants 1 and 3
to 6 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land bearing
Survey No.214/5 situated at Kudumalakunte Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk.
3. RSA.No.1358/2023 is filed by the plaintiff
questioning the judgment and decree rendered in
R.A.No.51/2018 wherein the appellate Court has
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff insofar as land
measuring one acre owned by first defendant-
Anjinamma bearing Survey No.214/6.
4. RSA.1372/2023 is filed by the plaintiff
assailing the judgment and decree rendered in
R.A.No.105/2018 in granting a decree in favour of
defendant No.7 in respect of one acre of land wherein
the appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the
trial Court directing defendant No.7 to pay
compensation to the plaintiff and also the finding
recorded by the trial Court on the sale deed obtained
by defendant No.7.
5. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
6. Facts leading to the case are as under:
Plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific
performance of contract in O.S.No.237/2006 based on
an agreement to sell dated 15.01.2006 executed by
defendants 1 and 2 in respect of suit land totally
measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, out of which, one acre
is owned by defendant No.1 and 1.20 guntas is owned
by defendant No.2. The case of the plaintiff is that
defendants 1 and 2 offered to sell the suit land for
sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and have executed
an agreement to sell on 15.01.2006 by receiving
earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. Plaintiff has
contended that he was ever ready and willing to
perform his part of contract and the present suit is
filed alleging that defendants 1 and 2 have sold land
measuring one acre in favour of defendant No.7 under
registered sale deed dated 29.9.2006 and the said
transaction is in breach of contract between plaintiff
and defendants 1 and 2.
7. Defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and
wife have contested the suit by filing written
statement. Defendant No.1 in her written statement
has admitted the suit agreement executed in favour of
plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has however alleged that
plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of the
obligation and has not shown his willingness to pay
the balance sale consideration and get the property
registered in his name. Defendant No.1 on the
contrary has alleged that since plaintiff failed to
complete the transaction as agreed under the suit
agreement, she along with defendant No.2 and
children have sold one acre of land in favour of
defendant No.7 under registered sale deed dated
29.9.2006. Defendants 1 and 2 also contended that if
relief of specific performance is granted in favour of
plaintiff insofar as 1 acre 20 guntas, the same would
cause more hardship to them and hence prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
8. Defendant No.7 who is the purchaser of
one acre of land claimed that he is a bonafide
purchaser and that he is in exclusive possession and
enjoyment in view of registered sale deed dated
29.9.2006.
9. Defendants 1 and 7 have also specifically
alleged that plaintiff has unilaterally inserted a portion
to negate the terms and conditions of the agreement
and specific pleadings were raised in that regard at
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the additional written
statement filed by them.
10. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate
their case have let in oral and documentary evidence.
11. Trial Court having examined the pleadings
of the parties and oral and documentary evidence let
in by both the parties answered issue No.1 in the
negative and held that plaintiff has failed to prove his
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the
contract. Trial Court having answered Issue No.1 in
the negative partly decreed the suit and thereby
directed defendants 1 to 6 to refund the earnest
money of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 18% per
annum. The trial Court further answered additional
issue No.4 framed on 15.7.2016 in the negative and
held that defendant No.7 has failed to prove that he is
a bonafide purchaser for value and therefore, directed
the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
to the plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the judgment
and decree of the trial Court in refusing decree for
specific performance, preferred an appeal.
Defendants 1 to 6 also filed an appeal questioning the
decree for refund. Defendant No.7 feeling aggrieved
by the finding on additional issue No.4 also preferred
an appeal.
13. The appellate Court clubbed all the three
appeals and has independently assessed the entire
material on record. The appellate Court while taking
cognizance of the sale deeds vide Exs.P26 and 28 and
lease deed vide Ex.P42 was not inclined to affirm the
finding recorded by the trial Court on readiness and
willingness of the parties. Referring to these sale
deeds and bank statement of the plaintiff, appellate
Court was of the view that plaintiff has adduced
overwhelming evidence to demonstrate his readiness
and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Appellate Court held that the trial Court has misread
the evidence let in by the plaintiff and therefore, held
that the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on
readiness and willingness suffer from serious
infirmities. Appellate Court on the contrary held that
plaintiff has succeeded not only in establishing his
financial capacity but has also succeeded in
establishing his willingness in completing the
transaction. The appellate Court also held that the
trial Court has not taken cognizance of the revenue
records which offers a satisfactory explanation as to
why plaintiff instituted the suit on 30.10.2006 though
agreement stipulated period of three months to
complete the transaction and the same was extended
by further sixty days under the very agreement.
Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence
however, was of the view that under the agreement,
defendants 1 and 2 were required to get the name of
defendant No.2 mutated in the revenue records
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. Under the agreement,
the appellate Court found that defendants were
required to produce original records by getting the
name of defendant No.2 mutated in the revenue
records to enable the parties to complete the
transaction. The appellate Court therefore, held that
defendants 1 and 2 are guilty of not performing their
part of contract.
14. Insofar as sale in favour of defendant No.7
to an extent of one acre in the very survey number is
concerned, the appellate Court on re-appreciation of
evidence however, held that defendant No.7 has
succeeded in establishing that he is a bonafide
purchaser of one acre of land. Appellate Court while
examining the transaction details and referring to the
evidence on record held that defendants 1 and 2 have
sold one acre of land in favour of defendant No.7
which is much prior to the filing of the suit and after
expiry of the period stipulated under the agreement
vide Ex.P2. The appellate Court has reversed the
findings recorded by the trial Court on issue No.1
relating to readiness and willingness of plaintiff and
the finding recorded on additional Issue No.4 relating
to whether defendant No.7 is a bonafide purchaser of
one acre of land. The appellate Court on these set of
reasoning has reversed the findings recorded by the
trial Court. The appellate Court has decreed the suit
of the plaintiff granting the relief of specific
performance of contract in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas
and defendant No.7 is held to be the bonafide
purchaser of one acre of land. The findings of the trial
Court that defendant No.7 is not a bonafide purchaser
and is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff is set
aside by the appellate Court.
15. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
defendants 1 to 6 and learned counsel appearing for
plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for defendant
No.7. I have also given my anxious consideration to
the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 6. I have also examined the
synopsis dated 17.11.2023 filed by the learned
counsel for the appellant in RSA.Nos.1358/2003 and
1357/2003.
16. Defendants 1 to 6 have admitted the suit
agreement. Their only defence is that plaintiff has
failed to perform his part of contract and he had no
financial capacity to complete the transaction. The
trial Court while answering issue No.1 in the negative
has taken note of Ex.P56 which is the bank statement.
Placing reliance on Ex.P56, trial Court has come to the
conclusion that plaintiff had no sufficient money to
complete the transaction. Referring to Ex.P56, trial
Court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has
mobilized funds after expiry of stipulated period of
three months. The trial Court was of the view that
plaintiff had no sufficient funds till filing of the suit.
17. However, appellate Court has taken a
contrary view on readiness and willingness of the
plaintiff. Appellate Court while taking cognizance of
sale deeds vide Exs.P3, 26 and 28 as well as the
purchase of a residential house as per Ex.P39,
was of the view that plaintiff's financial capacity is
clearly evident from the said sale transactions.
Referring to Ex.P42, appellate Court was of the view
that plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in
2006. It is in this background, appellate Court
differed with the findings recorded by the trial Court
on readiness and willingness.
18. In the light of the divergent findings on
readiness and willingness, let me examine the law
relating to the proof of readiness and willingness. The
question that needs consideration is: "Whether the
trial Court was justified in reading Ex.P56 in isolation
ignoring the other clinching evidence more particularly
the other sale transactions entered into by the plaintiff
as per Exs.P3, 26 and 28. It is a trite law that plaintiff
to demonstrate his financial capacity need not
necessarily have sufficient bank balance or cash
balance at the relevant time for arriving at a
conclusion that he was always ready to perform his
part of the contract.
19. In the realm of Contract law, the doctrine
of specific performance serves as a unique remedy
compelling the parties to honor their commitments.
Within these legal frame work, the plaintiffs readiness
and willingness to perform his contractual obligation
assumes paramount significance. Section 16(c) of
the Specific Relief Act anchors the requirement of the
plaintiff to exhibit the continuous state of readiness
and willingness throughout the litigation process.
However, a nuanced analysis reveals that adequacy of
plaintiff's bank balance, while relevant, is not an
absolute pre-requisite to establish his readiness and
willingness.
20. It is equally trite law that at the core of
specific performance lies the principle of equity,
seeking to rectify the breaches of contract by
enforcing the promised performance rather than
settling for mere monetary damages. The judiciary,
cognizant of multifaceted nature of contractual
relationships, has consistently upheld the notion that
readiness and willingness hinge on the sincerity and
genuine intent of the plaintiff. A plaintiff's financial
constrains, per se, should not be wielded as a
prohibitory factor if its actions and expressions
manifest a true desire to meet its contractual
obligations and therefore, it is not solely contingent on
financial largesee but encompasses a broader
spectrum of commitment and integrity.
21. Therefore, in the light of the principles
discussed supra, what needs to be examined by this
Court is as to whether the trial Court could have
totally banked on one document to assess the
plaintiff's financial capacity ignoring other material
documents. The phrase "sufficient bank balance"
must not be construed in isolation, but rather within
the context of specific performance landscape. The
Courts are bound to scrutinize the totality of the
circumstances, evaluating not only the plaintiff's
conduct, communications and overall engagements
with contractual process, but equally the conduct of
the defendants who are guilty of laying several
obstacles and creating an environment which
momentarily compels the plaintiff to take one step
backward. This normal reaction of the plaintiff in a
contractual process cannot be gathered to draw an
inference that plaintiff is not found to be ever ready
and willing to perform his part of the contract. The
Legislative intent beyond Section 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act, appears to aligning with the equitable ethos
of specific performance and therefore,
trial Court erred in underscoring the plaintiff's
commitment in performing his part of the contract.
22. The relevant portion of the suit agreement
is culled out as under:
"F ¸ÀéwÛ£À §UÉÎ ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ, ¥ÀºÀtÂ,
ªÀÄÄåmÉñÀ£ï, SÁvÁ, ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë, ¸ÉÌZï PÁ¦, ªÀÄzÀgï rÃqï,
jf¸ÀÖgïØ ¥ÀvÀæ, ¥ÀmÁÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ gÀ²Ã¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß
vÀAzÀÄPÉÆlÖ ªÉÄÃ¯É 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ ¨ÁQ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄUÉ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛêÉ."
The said recital clearly gives an indication that
defendants 1 and 2 were required to update the
revenue records to complete the transaction. As per
Ex.P14, the Tahsildar ordered to mutate the names of
defendants 1 and 2 in the RTC. It is evident from
Ex.P20 mutation under ME No.5/1999-2000 was
certified on 30.12.2008 and second defendant's name
was ordered to be mutated in respect of 1.20 guntas.
The name of first defendant also came to be entered
in the RTC only on 17.4.2006. It is also significant to
note that first defendant taking advantage of her
name mutated in the RTC has immediately sold one
acre of land in favour of defendant No.7 under
registered sale deed dated 29.9.2006.
23. If these significant details are looked into,
the defendants have no locus to question the
readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. The above
culled out portion of the suit agreement clearly
indicates that they were required to update the
records to complete the sale transaction. Instead of
performing their part of the contract by securing
updated revenue records, a false defence is taken in
the written statement that plaintiff had no financial
capacity and he was not ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract.
24. The next question that needs consideration
is the hardship pleaded by defendants 1 and 2. The
hardship pleaded by defendants cannot be considered
having found that the conduct of the defendants has
been grossly unfair. The defendants pending
consideration of suit for specific performance have
entered into an agreement with one P.G.
Satyanarayana, who in turn has filed a suit in
O.S.No.157/2014 and the matter is settled in Lok
Adalath. Pending consideration of the regular appeal,
one Kurubara Nagappa had filed an impleading
application claiming that the said P.G. Satyanarayana
has further executed an agreement to sell. If these
significant details are looked into, defendants 1 and 2
have used all possible means to deny the relief to the
plaintiff. All these significant details are rightly
appreciated by the appellate Court.
25. The claim of the plaintiff in
RSA.No.1372/2023 also cannot be entertained.
Defendant No.7 has purchased one acre of land under
registered sale deed dated 29.9.2006. First defendant
has alienated one acre of land in favour of defendant
No.7 after expiry of the period stipulated vide
agreement dated 15.01.2006 vide Ex.P2. The
appellate Court being the final fact finding authority
has recorded a categorical finding that defendant No.7
is a bonafide purchaser. This Court has also taken
cognizance of cross-examination of defendant No.7 by
plaintiff's counsel. Defendant No.7 has stated that he
would not have purchased this property if he had
known that there was a transaction between plaintiff
and defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has failed to
elicit anything worth in cross-examination of
defendant No.7 to discredit the bonafides of defendant
No.7. This Court is also of the view that defendant
No.7 is a bonafide purchaser insofar as one acre of
land is concerned.
26. For the reasons stated supra, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in
all the three appeals.
27. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
