Karnataka High Court
C S Nagaraja vs Sri J Raviprasad on 4 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
R.S.A NO. 392 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
C S NAGARAJA
S/O C S SIDDAPPA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR PATHI HOSPITAL,
PATHI HOSPITAL ROAD,
WARD NO.4, DOOR NO.3413,
PRASHANTHNAGAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI J RAVIPRASAD
S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2 . SRI J R SHASHI KUMAR
S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3 . SRI J SRINATHA
S/O LATE JAVAJI RAMAIAH,
2
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT CSI HOSPITAL ROAD,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA H V, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2021
PASSED IN RA.No.36/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.01.2019 PASSED IN OS No.240/2006 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
CHIKKABALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.11.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful defendant questioning the concurrent
judgments of the Courts below wherein the suit of the
plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance of
agreement is decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Plaintiff contends that defendant is the absolute
owner and that he offered to sell the suit schedule
property which was accepted by plaintiff. It is specific
case of the plaintiff that defendant has executed an
agreement to sell on 4.12.2003 and total sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.6,20,000/-. Plaintiff has
further contended that defendant has received Rs.One
lakh towards advance amount and it was agreed that
the transaction has to be completed within three
months by receiving balance sale consideration of
Rs.5,20,000/-. Plaintiff has further alleged that
inspite of repeated reminders, defendant did not come
forward to perform his part of the contract.
Therefore, plaintiff was compelled to issue notice on
20.7.2006. The plaintiff further alleged that
defendant approached plaintiff and requested one
month's time to complete the transaction. Inspite of
extension of time and second notice issued by plaintiff
on 12.10.2006, it is alleged that defendant failed to
complete the transaction and hence, the present suit.
4. On receipt of summons, defendant
contested the suit and stoutly denied the entire
averments made in the plaint. The defendant alleged
that one M. Krishnappa son of Marappa has created an
agreement and he has filed the suit for specific
performance in O.S.838/1993. Defendant claimed
that he has seriously contested the said suit which
came to be dismissed and the said Krishnappa has
preferred an appeal which is pending consideration in
R.A.73/2003. Defendant therefore, contended that he
has no intention to sell the suit property and claimed
that he has sufficient income and is financially sound
as he owns landed property and house property. The
defendant also alleged that the suit agreement is
created by the plaintiff with the help of witnesses to
the alleged agreement and a frivolous suit is filed.
The defendant also disputed the signature on the
alleged suit agreement and claimed that he has
lodged a compliant with the jurisdictional police.
5. The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate
their respective claim have let in oral and
documentary evidence. Plaintiff has examined both
the attesting witnesses to the suit agreement to
substantiate his claim. Pending trial, the disputed
signature on the suit agreement along with the
admitted signatures of the defendant were referred to
the finger print expert, who is examined as C.W.1 and
his report is marked at Ex.C5.
6. The trial Court having examined the
pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence and
also the Commissioner's report answered Issue Nos.1
to 3 in the affirmative. The trial Court while
examining the oral evidence of attesting witnesses
who are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and in absence of
rebuttal evidence held that plaintiff has succeeded in
proving due execution of suit agreement vide Ex.P1.
The trial Court has also taken cognizance of finger
print expert's report which is found to be in favour of
plaintiff and against the defendant. The finger print
expert has opined that the admitted signatures and
the signature found on the disputed document are
similar and identical. The trial Court while answering
Issue No.2 in the affirmative further held that plaintiff
has succeeded in proving his readiness and willingness
to perform his part of the contract.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal in
R.A.No.36/2019.
7. The appellate Court as a final fact finding
authority has independently assessed the evidence on
record and has come to the conclusion that plaintiff
has succeeded in proving that defendant offered to
sell the suit property and has executed an agreement
to sell by receiving an advance amount of Rs.One lakh
and the appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff
and defendant. I have examined the findings
recorded by both the Courts on Issue Nos.1 and 2 and
I have given my anxious consideration to the
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
defendant.
9. The defendant has denied the suit
agreement. The defendant has specifically disputed
his signature on the suit agreement and has come
forward with a theory of concoction. The trial Court
has meticulously examined the evidence of the
attesting witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.2 and
3. Both the witnesses have withstood the test of
cross-examination and have supported the case of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is further strengthened as
the report of the finger print expert has come to the
aid of the plaintiff. The finger print expert has opined
that the signatures found on the disputed suit
agreement and the admitted signatures are one and
the same. On examining the conclusions and reasons
assigned by the Courts below, this Court is more than
satisfied that the findings recorded by both the Courts
on Issue No.1 is in accordance with law and I do not
find any infirmities.
10. Both the Courts referring to two legal
notices issued by the plaintiff and more particularly,
the second legal notice sent by the plaintiff which is
refused by the defendant have concurrently held that
plaintiff has substantiated his readiness and
willingness. Both the Courts have held that defendant
has failed to substantiate his defence while cross-
examining plaintiff. Both the Courts have held that
nothing is elicited by the counsel appearing for
defendant in the cross-examination of plaintiff on
readiness and willingness.
11. Both the Courts have held that plaintiff has
proved the suit agreement and has also proved his
readiness and willingness. The theory of concoction
set up by defendant is out rightly rejected by both the
Courts. This Court in an appeal under Section 100 has
no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reverse
the conclusions recorded by both the Courts. If both
the Courts on appreciation of entire material on record
have exercised judicial discretion and while doing so
have satisfied themselves that the circumstances are
such that it is equitable to pass a decree for specific
performance and detailed reasons are recorded for
having exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said
discretion exercised by both the Courts. The trial
Court, in particular, has also taken note of the conduct
of the defendant who has gone to the extent of
disputing the transaction alleging that it is a concocted
document. This Court is satisfied that both the Courts
have taken into consideration the circumstances of the
case, the conduct of plaintiff and defendant and their
respective interest under the contract. This Court is
more than satisfied that both the Courts have
exercised discretion judiciously and the same do not
warrant interference at the hands of this Court. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*alb/-
