Karnataka High Court
Shri. Rajasab S/O Peersab Gondihosalli vs Shri. Hanumappa Barker on 14 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
RFA No. 100346 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100346 OF 2018 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAJASAB
S/O. PEERSAB GONDIHOSALLI,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KARKIHALLI-583 228,
TALUKA AND DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. HANUMAPPA BARKER
S/O. GUNDAPPA BARKER,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
M KANKUPPI R/O: KARIKIHALLI-583 228,
Digitally signed by
TALUKA AND DIST: KOPPAL.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI ...RESPONDENT
Date: 2024.02.23
14:46:46 +0530 (BY SRI.DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.45/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ASHOK
S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
RFA No. 100346 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the
judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 passed in O.S.
No.45/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Koppal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent
is the defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific
performance of contract against the defendant.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant
is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He
has offered the plaintiff to purchase the suit lands for
consideration. In turn, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the
suit schedule lands for the consideration amount. Further,
the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favor of
one Huggi Galeppa of Benakapur village for a sum of
Rs.3,54,000/-, out of which, the defendant received an
amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as earnest money and executed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
registered agreement of sale dated 16.08.2010. On
12.03.2012, Huggi Galeppa had executed registered
cancellation deed dated 12.03.2012. The defendant, in
continuation of the previous agreement dated 16.08.2010,
by suppressing the real facts of the previous agreement of
sale so executed in favour of Huggi Galeppa, further
executed an agreement of sale in favour of one Allasab in
respect of the same suit properties for a sum of
Rs.2,72,000/-, out of which, he received a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and executed a registered
agreement of sale dated 27.09.2010. The defendant in
addition to the agreements of sale, he also executed an
agreement of sale in favour of one Gyanappa Bhajantri for
consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, out of which, he received
a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- as earnest money as per
agreement dated 12.03.2012. The plaintiff approached all
the intending purchasers and made enquiry about their
intention to purchase the suit schedule properties, in turn,
all the intending purchasers stated that previously the
defendant approached and pleaded his legal necessity and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
offered to sell his lands for consideration. Believing the
facts and his inability, without verifying, paid earnest
money to the defendant, who executed a registered
agreement of sale to them. Now due to hike in the price of
the lands, he offered them for higher price. As they were
unable to pay higher price rather than the real price and, if
he gets higher price for his lands, used to sell the lands to
others provided that the purchasers should pay their
earnest money paid by them. On enquiry made to all
elders in the locality as well as the persons referred to
above along with the defendant, accepted all the
agreements of sale and agreed to repay their earnest
money after receiving earnest money from the plaintiff
and mutual consideration has been settled between the
plaintiff and the defendant for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/-
and on 26.07.2012, the plaintiff paid a sum of
Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the
witnesses and also on the aforesaid date, the defendant
has repaid the earnest amount so received from Allasab
and Gyanappa Bhajantri, who in turn have executed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
cancellation deed of agreement. The defendant agreed to
execute a registered sale deed within one year by
obtaining Form No.11E as well as the Phodi map from the
Revenue Officer and he also executed an
acknowledgement on 06.11.2013 for enlargement of time
for a period of one year. The plaintiff was/is always ready
and willing to perform his part of the contract but in turn,
defendant went on postponing and the defendant has
committed breach of contract. The plaintiff got issued a
legal notice to the defendant on 22.11.2013 calling upon
the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount
and to execute the registered sale deed. The said notice
was served on the defendant but the defendant refused to
comply with the terms of the contract. Hence, cause of
action arouses for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific
performance of contract.
5. The defendant filed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint and also denied the
execution of the previous agreements of sale in favour of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
Allasab, Huggi Galeppa and Gyanappa Bhajantri. It is
contended that, Gyanappa Bhajantri and the plaintiff along
with Allasab colluded each other and got created the
alleged sale deeds dated 16.08.2010, 27.09.2010 and
12.03.2012 and 26.07.2012 without the knowledge of the
defendant by taking advantage of his innocence, ignorance
and illiteracy with an intention to grab the suit lands.
There was no legal necessity for the defendant to execute
agreement of sale in favour of any person at any point of
time. It is contended that the defendant has no other
agricultural lands. The defendant is getting good yield
from the suit lands every year. The defendant along with
his wife approached to get Rs.60,000/- hand loan to help
his friend, at that time, the plaintiff got created the
agreement of sale in respect of only one home of the
defendant under misrepresentation as agreement of
mortgage deed for the said hand loan amount of
Rs.60,000/-. The plaintiff and his brother Allasab along
with Huggi Galeppa and Gyanappa colluded with the Sub-
Registrar, Koppal, and created the sale deeds. The
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
defendant is not liable to execute registered sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties, framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
offered to sell the suit property for a sum of
Rs.20,50,000/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he entered into
a registered agreement of sale with the
defendant on 26-07.2012?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid
Rs.20,40,000/- earnest money to the
defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was/is
ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the
agreement of sale came to be created under the
circumstances pleaded in para 13 of the written
statement?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
specific performance of contract?
7. What order or decree?"
7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case,
examined himself as PW-1 and examined two witnesses as
PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to
P-18. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and got
marked one document as Ex.D-1.
8. The trial Court on assessment of the oral and
documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 6 in the
negative and issue No.7 as per the final order and
consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and
the learned counsel for the defendant.
10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted
that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
properties for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/- and the
plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest money to
the defendant and further agreed to pay balance
consideration of amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant
at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. He
submits that the plaintiff was/is ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract, but the defendant did not
comply with the conditions of agreement of sale. He
submits that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the
defendant calling upon him to receive the balance
consideration amount and to execute the registered sale
deed. He submits that the agreement of sale is registered.
The Trial Court could have drawn presumption but
dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff has
not produced any material to show that he possessed an
amount for purchasing the properties. He submits that
though agreement of sale is registered, the defendant has
denied the same and any amount of oral evidence contrary
to the terms of the written instrument, is inadmissible in
evidence as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. He
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
submits that the court below has failed to consider Section
92 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also further submits that
the defendant has no taken a defence in the written
statement in regard to the financial capacity of the
plaintiff. The trial Court, without there being any pleading
by the defendant in the written statement in that regard,
has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff
had no financial capacity to purchase the suit properties.
He further submits that the plaintiff got issued a legal
notice calling upon the defendant to perform his part of
the contract but the defendant committed breach of
contract. The plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract but the trial Court has
committed an error in answering issue Nos.1 to 6 in the
negative and dismissing the suit. Hence, the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary
and erroneous. Hence, on these ground, he prays to allow
the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant
supports the impugned judgment and submits that the
plaintiff has not produced any records to show that he had
money to purchase the suit properties. He submits that
the defendant has denied execution of the agreement of
sale and the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of
an agreement of sale. Hence, he submits that the trial
Court was justified in dismissing the suit. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Heard and perused the records. Considering
the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the
points that would arise for our consideration are:
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
agreed to sell the suit property for consideration
of Rs.20,50,000/- and executed a registered
agreement of sale on 26.07.2012 and issued a
legal notice to prove that he was/is ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract but on
the contrary, the defendant committed breach
of contract?
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he had paid
Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest money to the
defendant under a registered agreement of sale
dated 26.07.2012?
iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was/is
ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract?
iv) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff
got created a registered agreement of sale
dated 26.07.2012?
v) Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse
and arbitrary?
vi) What order or decree?
13. Points (i) to (iii): As these points are
interlinked with each other, they are taken together for
common discussion in order to repetition of facts.
14. The plaintiff in order to prove his case
examined himself as PW-1. He has reiterated the plaint
averments in the examination-in-chief and in order to
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
demonstrate that the defendant agreed to sell the suit
schedule properties for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-
and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest
money to the defendant and the defendant executed a
registered agreement of sale on 26.07.2012, the plaintiffs
has produced the documents, Ex.P-1 is the registered
agreement of sale dated 26.07.2012 which discloses that
the defendant agreed to sell the suit properties in favour
of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-
and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- towards
earnest money and it was agreed upon that the remaining
balance amount to be paid at the time of execution of
registered sale deed and further it was agreed that the
defendant shall keep the documents ready before the
execution of the registered sale deed. It was agreed that
the defendant shall execute the registered sale deed within
one year from the date of execution of the agreement of
sale. The defendant did not obtain Form 11E and Phodi
map as per the terms of agreement of sale-Ex.P-1; Ex.P-2
is an acknowledgement dated 06.11.2013; Ex.P-3 is the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
registered agreement of sale executed by defendant in
favour of Huggi Galeppa on 16.08.2010; Ex.P-4 is the
cancellation of agreement of sale dated 12.03.2012; Ex.P-
5 is the certified copy of the agreement of sale dated
27.09.2010; Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of the agreement
of sale dated 12.03.2012; Ex.P-7 is the cancellation of
agreement dated 26.07.2012; Ex.P-8 is the certified copy
of another cancellation deed of agreement of sale dated
26.07.2012; Ex.P-9 is the legal notice got issued by the
plaintiff to the defendant dated 22.11.2013 calling upon
the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount
and to execute the registered sale deed; Ex.P-10 is the
postal receipt; Ex.P-11 is the postal acknowledgement
which discloses that the defendant had received the legal
notice and the acknowledgement bears the signature of
the defendant; Ex.P-12 is the reply notice issued by the
defendant dated 30.11.2013. Exs.P-13 to 17 are the RTC
extracts in respect of the suit lands; Ex.P-18 is the
encumbrance certificate. Except denying the averments
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
made in the examination in chief, nothing has been elicited
from the mouth of this witness.
15. Further, the plaintiff has also examined one
Srinivas as PW-2, who is stated to be an attesting witness
to Ex.P-1. He has deposed that the defendant offered to
sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff
for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/- and accordingly the
plaintiff accepted the offer of the defendant and paid
earnest money of Rs.20,40,000/- to the defendant in his
the presence and the defendant executed a registered
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 26.07.2012.
Further, it was agreed that the defendant agreed to
execute a registered sale deed within one year of
obtaining Form-11E and Phodi map from the Revenue
Officer and he identified his signature on Ex.P-1 and the
same is marked as Ex.P-1(d). It is suggested to PW-2
that the defendant has paid sum of Rs.60,000/- towards
hand loan from the plaintiff and executed an agreement
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
for the purpose of security. The said suggestion was
denied by PW-2.
16. The plaintiff also examined one Gyanappa as
PW-3 in order to establish that the defendant had agreed
to sell the suit land in favour of PW-3 vide agreement
dated 1203.2012 for consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. He
paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- towards earnest money
and agreed to pay the remaining balance amount of
Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of execution
of agreement of sale. He further deposed that the
defendant had greed to sell the suit schedule properties in
favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-
and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,40,000/-
and the defendant executed agreement of sale in favour of
the plaintiff on 26.07.2012 in the presence of witnesses.
He also deposed that he got cancelled the agreement of
sale executed by the defendant in his favour on
26.07.2012 as per Ex.P-8. Nothing has been elicited from
the mouth of this witness.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
17. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as
DW-1. He has reiterated the written statement averments
in his examination-in-chief and got marked document
Ex.D-1-certified copy of the agreement of sale. In the
course of his cross-examination, he has deposed that,
prior to execution of agreement of sale, he has not
executed any agreement of sale in favour of any person.
He denies that, on 16.08.2010 he has executed registered
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and also denied
execution of acknowledgement on 12.03.2012 for
enlarging the time for execution of the agreement of
registered sale deed and even DW-1 has gone to the
extent of denying his photograph on Ex.D-1.
18. From the perusal of the evidence placed on
record by the parties, the plaintiff has proved, Ex.P-1 is
the registered agreement of sale which discloses that the
defendant had executed agreement of sale in favour of the
plaintiff for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/- and the
plaintiff paid sum of Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest money.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
The said agreement of sale is registered. Though the
defendant has examined himself as DW-1, he has denied
execution of a registered agreement of sale.
19. In order to consider the case on hand, it is
necessary to examine Section 92 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, which reads as under:
"92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.-
When the terms of any such contract, grant or other
disposition of property, or any matter required by law
to be reduced to the form of a document, have been
proved according to the last section, no evidence of
any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as
between the parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for the purpose of
contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from,
its terms."
20. Section 92 of the Evidence Act provides that,
any evidence contrary to the terms of the instrument is
inadmissible in evidence.
21. Though there is presumption in regard to
registered document, the trial Court has failed to consider
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
the said presumption and further the plaintiff in order to
prove the execution of Ex.P-1 examined the attesting
witness to Ex.P-1 as PW-2, who has supported the case of
the plaintiff. The said fact has been overlooked by the
Trial Court and the trial Court has dismissed the suit only
on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any
record to show that plaintiff was not possessing sufficient
fund for purchasing the suit schedule properties.
22. From the perusal of the written statement filed
by the defendant, the defendant has no where challenged
the financial capacity of the plaintiff. The trial Court has
committed an error in recording a finding that the plaintiff
has not produced any material to establish that he was
possessing sufficient amount without there being any plea
by the defendant in the written statement nor any issue
being framed by the trial Court on the said aspect. In the
absence of the pleadings and an issue, the finding
recorded by the trial Court on the financial status of the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
plaintiff cannot be sustained. The trial Court has
committed an error in dismissing the suit.
23. It is the case of the defendant that the
defendant approached the plaintiff to advance hand loan of
Rs.60,000/-, accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of
Rs.60,000/- and as a security to the said loan, he has
executed an agreement of mortgage deed but the plaintiff
instead of getting executed registered mortgage deed got
executed a registered agreement of sale and thus, the
defendant never intended to sell the suit schedule
properties.
24. From the perusal of Ex.P-1, it could be seen
that there is no recital in Ex.P-1 that the document is
executed towards security of loan transaction and further
the defendant has not lead any evidence to show that
Ex.P-1 was executed by way of security for the loan
transaction. On the other hand, Ex.P-1 is a sale
transaction wherein the defendant intended to sell the suit
schedule properties for consideration of Rs.20,50,000/-
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
and the plaintiff has paid consideration of Rs.20,40,000/-
and the said agreement is registered. The defendant did
not challenge the said registered agreement of sale. The
plaintiff in order to establish that he was/is ready and
willing to perform his part of contract issued a legal notice
as per Ex.P.9 calling upon the defendant to receive the
balance consideration amount and execute a registered
sale deed. Thus the plaintiff by issuing legal notice Ex.P.9
has proved that he was ready and willing to perform his
part of contract. The plaintiff has paid the substantial
portion of sale consideration amount and only meager
amount is to be paid. On the contrary the defendant by
issuing Ex.P.12, reply to the legal notice, denied to
perform his part of contract and committed a breach of
contract. Further, the defence taken by the defendant
that, it is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction, is
contrary to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and the
trial Court has committed an error in answering issue
Nos.1 to 6 in the negative holding that the plaintiff has
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
failed to prove the execution of a registered agreement of
sale by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
25. In view of the above discussion, we answer
point Nos.(i) to (iii) in the affirmative holding that the
plaintiff has proved that the defendant executed
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff for
consideration of Rs.20,50,000/- and the plaintiff paid a
sum of Rs.20,40,000/- as earnest money.
26. Point No.(iv): It is the defence of the
defendant that the plaintiff has got created Ex.P-1.
27. The plaintiff in order to prove his case produced
the documents from which it could be gathered that the
defendant is in the habit of executing registered
agreement of sale in favour of the intending purchasers
and canceling the same and again resale the same land to
other persons whenever the value of the land would be
high. In order to establish the same, the plaintiff has
produced registered agreements of sale executed by the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
defendant in favour of Allasab, Gyanappa and Huggi
Galeppa i.e. Exs.P-3, P-5 and P-8 and further got them
cancelled through cancellation deed as per Exs.P-4, 7 and
8.
28. From the perusal of the records, it disclose that
the defendant is in the habit of executing registered
agreement of sale deeds in favour of intending purchasers
and whenever the value of the land would go high and
when the intending purchasers fail to pay the higher value,
the defendant used to get cancelled the agreements of
sale executed. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant
to establish that the plaintiff got created the agreement of
sale. Except the oral testimony of the defendant as DW-1,
the defendant has not examined any attesting witness in
order to establish that the plaintiff has got created the
Ex.P-1. Further the defendant has not taken any measure
to lodge a criminal case against the plaintiff. On the
contrary, the plaintiff has examined the attesting witness
as PW-2, who has deposed that the defendant has
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. In
the absence of any material on record, the defendant has
failed to prove that the plaintiff has got created a
registered agreement of sale in his favour.
29. In view of the above discussion, we answer
point No.(iv) in the negative.
30. Though we have answered Point Nos.(i) to (iii)
in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant has taken a
defence in the written statement that the defendant has
no other property except the suit schedule properties and
the family of the defendant is depending on the income
derived from out of the suit schedule properties.
31. It is settled principle of law that grant of relief
of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable
relief. The material questions which are required to be
gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance
are:
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
i. Whether there exists a valid and concluded contract
between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit
property;
ii. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and wiling to
perform his part of contract and whether he is still
ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract;
iii. Whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part
of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent
and in what manner he has performed and whether
such performance was in conformity with the terms
of the contract;
iv. Whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of
specific performance to the plaintiff against t he
defendant in relation to sit property or it will cause
any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how
ad in what manner and the extent if such relief is
eventually granted to the plaintiff.
v. Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of
any other alternative relief namely, refund of earnest
money etc, and, if so, on what grounds.
32. In our opinion, the aforementioned material
questions are part of the statutory requirements. These
requirements need to be properly pleaded by the parties in
their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
evidence in accordance with law. It is only then, the Court
is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant
or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon
the case made out by the parties on facts.
33. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Specific
Relief Act (Pre-amendment) lists some of the principles
that the court should take into consideration while
exercising discretion. The factors to be considered while
exercising discretion include hardship to the
defendant/seller which he did not foresee, hardship to the
plaintiff/purchaser in case of non-performance, or whether
the contract, even when not void, was entered under the
circumstances that make the enforcement of specific
performance inequitable, or whether the plaintiff has done
substantial acts or suffered losses as a consequence of the
contract, and the conduct of the parties, including that of
the defendant/seller and other circumstances under which
the contract was entered are such that they give an unfair
advantage over the defendant/seller. The Court should
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
examine whether the plaintiff/purchaser had, in fact,
performed his part of the contract, and if so, how and to
what extent, and in what manner he has performed, and
whether such performance was in conformity with the
terms of the contract, the status of the parties, and
whether the plaintiff/purchaser is a speculator in the
property, who buys and sells properties, and whether his
conduct reflects and attempt to gain on account of the rise
in the price of the property, hoping that the delay in
payment of full consideration would go to his advantage,
will be a relevant consideration.
34. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that
the defendant has pleaded in the written statement that,
in case, if specific performance is granted, the defendant
would be put to hardship, as, after the execution of the
agreement of sale, the plaintiff has not done substantial
acts or suffered loss as a consequence of the contract and
further there is delay of two years in filing the suit.
Though agreement of sale was executed in the year 2012,
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
the suit was filed in the year 2014 and the suit was
dismissed vide judgment dated 13.07.2018, in between
number of years have been passed and if decree of
specific performance of contract is granted, it would cause
hardship to the defendant. In view of the same, we
answer point No.(v) in the negative.
35. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff
submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that
the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific
performance, the alternate prayer for refund of earnest
money with interest may be granted.
36. Submission of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff is placed on record.
37. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court dated 13.07.2018 passed in
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3547-DB
O.S.No.45/2014 by the leaned Senior Civil
Judge, Koppal is set aside. The suit of the
plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is entitled
for refund of the earnest money of
Rs.20,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of filing of the suit till
realization of the amount. The defendant is
directed to refund the amount within two months
from today.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV
CT:VH
