[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. M.C. Seethalakshmi vs Smt. T. Nirmala on 1 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
RSA No. 336 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M.C. SEETHALAKSHMI
W/O. MR. M.S. CHIDAMBARA JOIS
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT KABALIKATTE VILLAGE
BHADRA COLONY POST
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. T. NIRMALA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M W/O MR. T. SHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGRICULTURIST
KARNATAKA R/AT SHRINIDHI NILAYA
VASAVI COLONY, OLD TOWN
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.121/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
RSA No. 336 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.211/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-
respondent.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while
seeking the relief of specific performance is that suit schedule
property belongs to defendant and defendant was in financial
commitment and hence, offered the suit schedule property for
sale in favour of the plaintiff and executed unregistered
agreement of sale on 21.04.2011 by receiving an earnest
money and subsequently, received additional amount and made
an endorsement in Ex.P1-sale agreement and she was always
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
ready and willing to perform her part of contract. But, the
defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
Hence, she had issued the legal notice and when the defendant
did not give any response to the legal notice, without any other
alternative filed the suit for the relief of specific performance.
4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement
and the only contention taken is that suit is barred by
limitation.
5. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence
and considering both oral and documentary evidence comes to
the conclusion that there was an agreement of sale and in total,
the defendant had received sale consideration of Rs.2,65,000/-
and also taken note that there was a condition in the
agreement itself that there was a dispute and the defendant
has to get it clear the same. The plaintiff, in support of her case
examined a witness i.e., document writer as P.W.2 and also a
witness to the sale agreement as P.W.3 and both of them have
deposed that a sale transaction has taken place and also speak
about payment of cash as well as issuance of Cheque. Hence,
Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
comes to the conclusion that there was a sale transaction and
even, taken note of question of law with regard to limitation is
concerned and for having received part payment also executed
the document of endorsement and particularly in paragraph
No.31, taken note of contents of document Exs.P1 and P2 and
observed that recital of Ex.P2 makes clear that defendant has
to obtain a necessary documents and also intimate about
disposal of matter pending before revenue authority and
thereafter stimulation period starts and obligation shift upon
the plaintiff to pay the remaining balance sale consideration
amount within 3 months from the date of intimation. The
defendant did not intimate anything about the same and hence,
the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform her part of contract and answered
issue Nos.1 and 2 as 'affirmative' and issue No.3 as 'negative',
since specific defence was taken in the written statement that
suit is barred by limitation and the same is answered
considering the fact that no intimation was given for having
cleared the dispute. Hence, comes to the conclusion that suit is
in time and granted the relief of specific performance.
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.121/2023. The First Appellate Court also having
considered the grounds which have been extracted in
paragraph No.10, framed the points for consideration and on
re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence,
particularly taking note of the evidence of witnesses, Ex.P1-sale
agreement and Ex.P2-shara and also the evidence of P.W.1, no
dispute for having received the amount on the date of sale
transaction in terms of Ex.P1 and there was also subsequent
endorsement for having received the balance sale consideration
and the same is discussed in paragraph No.20 that on two
occasions, she has received the amount of Rs.60,000/- and
Rs.70,000/- by way of Cheque, same was also endorsed on
Ex.P1. The subsequent payment is also by way of Cheque only
and the appellant herself got encashed the said Cheque and not
denied the signatures. With regard to the dispute is concerned,
taken note of the same in paragraph No.21, wherein 7 guntas
of land was standing in the name of appellant and in respect of
remaining area is concerned, there was a dispute. Hence,
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an
error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. The
counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has
not considered the issue of limitation and Article 54 of the
Limitation Act is very clear with regard to refusal is concerned
and failed to consider hardship and the defendant was always
ready and willing to perform her part of contract and only an
amount of Rs.2,65,000/- was paid and remaining amount was
not paid and the plaintiff was not ready to perform her part of
contract. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and
frame substantial question of law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator-
respondent would vehemently contend that recitals of
document Ex.P1 is very clear that there was a dispute and only
after clearance of dispute itself, she has to give intimation to
the plaintiff and then, plaintiff has to pay the amount. All these
factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and particularly,
taken note of shara at Ex.P2 for having received the additional
amount by way of Cheque i.e., an amount of Rs.60,000/- and
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
Rs.75,000/-. Hence, it is clear that plaintiff was always ready
and willing to perform her part of contract and the defendant
herself did not come forward to clear the dispute. Hence, legal
notice was issued and filed the suit and it does not require any
interference.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and
considering the material available on record, there is no dispute
with regard to very execution of document of sale agreement
and only during the course of argument, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that
husband of the appellant was addicted to bad vices and hence,
the same was taken advantage by the respondent/plaintiff. In
order to substantiate the said contention also, the defendant
has not placed any material before the Court. Apart from that
the very appellant has received the additional amount of
Rs.60,000/- and Rs.75,000/- subsequent to the agreement of
sale and endorsement is also made in the shara i.e., Ex.P2 and
the same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.31
and detailed discussion was made and so also in paragraph
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
No.32 that Exs.P1 and P2 agreement of sale and endorsement,
nature of the plaint schedule property and the surrounding
circumstances clearly establishes that time is not the essence
of the contract, since suit property is an immovable agricultural
property. The defendant has failed to perform her part of
contract, then the question of time being the essence does not
arise. When clear admission was given that no intimation was
given for having cleared the dispute and issue No.3 was also
discussed in detail that when the defendant refused to perform
her part of contract by way of reply notice on 16.04.2018, the
plaintiff has filed the suit immediately on 04.06.2018 and
Article 54 of the Limitation Act is pressed into service that if
there is a time bound period, then time is the essence of
contract. But, in the case on hand, time is not the essence of
the contract and the plaintiff has to make the payment
subsequent to intimation for having cleared the dispute
between the defendant and the concerned. When such material
is not placed and refusal is only subsequent to issuance of legal
notice and Article 54 is clear that within 3 years from the date
of refusal, suit has to be filed and suit is filed within 1½ month
of reply notice and all these factors were taken note of by the
NC: 2025:KHC:49847
HC-KAR
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts
have taken note of question of law and question of fact. Hence,
I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also in
paragraph No.20, in detail taken note of payment and
additional payment made by the plaintiff and also endorsement
made in shara at Ex.P2. When such being the case, I do not
find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law and even with regard to limitation
also, in detail discussed by both by Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court. Hence, no ground is made out to invoke
Section 100 of CPC.
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
