[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S Rayappan vs Smt Lakshmamma on 19 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
RFA No. 410 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1621 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2004 (SP)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1621 OF 2022
IN RFA No. 410/2004:
BETWEEN:
S. RAYAPPAN
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
1a. SMT. R.A. MARY
W/O LATE S. RAYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
1b. SMT. R. BRIDGET
D/O LATE S. RAYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
1c. SMT. R. VINNARASI
D/O LATE S. RAYAPPAN
Digitally
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
signed by
NANDINI M S 1d. SRI R. BOSCO
Location: S/O LATE S. RAYAPPAN
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
OF
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
R/A No.38, KADIRENAPALYA
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 038.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAHUL S REDDY, ADV., FOR LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED MAJOR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
RFA No. 410 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1621 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. SRI MUNIVEERAPPA
S/O LATE OBLAPPA
AGED MAJOR.
3. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O LATE MARAPPA
AGED MAJOR
A. NARAYANAPURA
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BANGALORE.
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BYAPPANAHALLI NOTIFIED AREA
COMMITTEE, BANGALORE SOUTH
TALUK, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV., FOR R-4;
SRI CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY V, ADV., FOR R-3;
R-1 TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O DTD: 06.12.2025 R-1 PERMITTED TO
TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R-2)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND 41 R 1 AND 2 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT:09.09.2003 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.1176/96 ON THE FILE DOF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-8), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.
IN RFA No.1621/2022:
BETWEEN:
R. BOSCO
S/O S. RAYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A NO.399, MARUTHINAGAR
II PHASE SONNENNAHALLI VILLAGE
JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU - 560 066.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV.)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
RFA No. 410 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1621 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O LATE NARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/A A NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 016.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY V, ADV.)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1
OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2022
PASSED IN OS No.5402/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 11.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The subject matter of these two appeals is common
and the contesting parties in these two appeals are also
common, and therefore, the appeals are heard together
and disposed of by this common judgment, with the
consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
2. Suit in O.S.No.1176/1996 was filed by S.Rayappan
seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement
for sale dated 16.01.1982 said to have been executed in
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
his favour in respect of the suit schedule property by
defendant nos.1 & 2 in the suit, and to cancel the
registered sale deed dated 02.04.1994 said to have been
executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant
no.3 in the suit.
3. The Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated
09.09.2003 has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.1176/1996,
and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the said suit
viz., S.Rayappan, is before this Court in RFA.No.410/2004.
4. During the pendency of RFA.No.410/2004, it appears
that S.Rayappan had executed a registered sale deed
dated 26.05.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property
in favour of his son R.Bosco on the strength of the
registered power of attorney executed by defendant nos.1
& 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996 in favour of S.Rayappan.
Alleging that defendant no.3 in O.S.No.1176/1996 viz.,
Smt. Munivenkatamma tried to interfere with the
possession of the suit schedule property by the purchasers
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
under the registered sale deed dated 26.05.2012, suit in
O.S.No.5402/2014 was filed by R.Bosco S/o S.Rayappan
seeking the relief of permanent injunction against Smt.
Munivenkatamma. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial
Court by judgment and decree dated 29.06.2022.
Aggrieved by the same, R.Bosco S/o S.Rayappan has filed
RFA.No.1621/2022 before this Court.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that the Trial Court was not justified in
dismissing O.S.No.1176/1996 having recorded a finding
that the plaintiff in the said suit had proved the agreement
in question. He submits that defendants in the said suit
had not at all contested the claim of the plaintiff, and
therefore, the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit.
He further submits that the sale deed was executed by
S.Rayappan in favour of his son R.Bosco on the basis of
the irrevocable power of attorney executed by defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996. Since the power of
attorney was coupled with interest, the same could not
have been cancelled by the executors. He submits that the
Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the
matter and has erred in dismissing the suit
O.S.No.5402/2014.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.3 in RFA.No.410/2004 who is the sole contesting
respondent, submits that RFA.No.410/2004 was dismissed
for non-prosecution by this Court, and thereafter, under a
registered sale deed dated 12.03.2024, the suit schedule
property had been sold in favour of one Smt. Jayapritha.
Therefore, no relief can be granted in these appeals. He,
accordingly prays to dismiss the appeals.
8. Re: RFA.No.410/2004: Suit in O.S.No.1176/1996
was filed with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deed
dated 02.04.1994 executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in
favour of defendant no.3 - Smt. Munivenkatamma, and
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
also for specific performance of the agreement for sale
dated 16.01.1982 said to have been executed by
defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff.
9. Defendant nos.1 & 2 were placed ex-parte in
O.S.No.1176/1996. Defendant no.3 had filed her written
statement and based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court
had framed as many as five Issues in the suit.
10. Plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 and 16
documents were got marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16. PW-1 was
not cross-examined on behalf of the defendants and no
oral or documentary evidence was placed on record on
behalf of the defendants.
11. The Trial Court had answered Issue no.1 framed in
the suit in the affirmative and had held that plaintiff had
proved that defendant nos.1 & 2 had agreed to sell the
suit schedule property for a valuable sale consideration of
Rs.3,000/- and also executed a General Power of Attorney
and agreement for sale dated 16.01.1982 in favour of
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
plaintiff after having received advance amount of
Rs.2,900/-. However, the Trial Court has held that plaintiff
had not proved his readiness and willingness to perform
his part of the contract. The sale agreement was dated
16.01.1982 and the suit for specific performance was filed
in the year 1996. The plaintiff had not even issued any
legal notice to defendant nos.1 & 2 calling upon them to
execute the sale deed in his favour, nor had he expressed
his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the
contract by paying balance sale consideration as agreed
under the agreement for sale dated 16.01.1982. It is
under these circumstances, the Trial Court has held that
the plaintiff had not proved his readiness and willingness
to perform his part of the contract.
12. It is also relevant to note here that Section 20 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, prior to its amendment in the
year 2018, provided that the relief of specific performance
of the contract was a discretionary relief to be granted by
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
the court taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of each case.
13. In the case on hand, undisputedly, defendant nos.1 &
2 have executed a registered sale deed in favour of
defendant no.3 on 02.04.1994. Though plaintiff has sought
for cancellation of the said sale deed, no material was
produced by the plaintiff to prima facie prove before the
Trial Court that such a sale deed was executed by
defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.3. The
plaintiff had not even produced the copy of the such a sale
deed, much less the certified copy of the said document.
In the absence of any material before the court to show
that defendant nos.1 & 2 had executed a sale deed in
favour of defendant no.3 in respect of the suit schedule
property, the Trial Court had refused to grant any relief to
the plaintiff to cancel the aforesaid sale deed dated
02.04.1994.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
14. It is relevant to note here that during the pendency
of RFA.No.410/2004 which arises out of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.1176/1996, the plaintiff viz.,
S.Rayappan has executed a registered sale deed in respect
of the suit schedule property on 26.05.2012 in favour of
his son R.Bosco.
15. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act provides for
personal bars to relief. Section 16(b) of the said Act
provides that specific performance of the contract cannot
be enforced in favour of a person who has become
incapable of performing the contract.
16. Since the plaintiff in O.S.No.1176/1996 has now
executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule
property in favour of his son under the alleged irrevocable
registered General Power of Attorney stated to have been
executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in his favour, the relief of
specific performance of agreement for sale dated
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
16.01.1982 in respect of the suit schedule property cannot
be granted in his favour.
17. It is also relevant to note here that this Regular First
Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court on
25.03.2019 and the said order was recalled on
07.11.2024. In the meanwhile, on 12.03.2024, respondent
no.3 herein viz., Smt. Munivenkatamma has executed sale
deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of
one Smt. Jayapritha for valid sale consideration and copy
of the sale deed is produced along with the memo before
this Court by the learned Counsel for respondent no.3.
Since the sale transaction has taken place when the
appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, it cannot be
said that the said transaction is hit by the principles of
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore,
the plaintiff/appellant cannot be granted the relief sought
for in this appeal. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
18. Re: RFA.No.1621/2022: This Regular First Appeal
arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2022
passed in O.S.No.5402/2014. R.Bosco S/o S.Rayappan is
the plaintiff in the said suit. It is the case of the plaintiff
that his father acting as the General Power of Attorney
holder of defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996, has
executed a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit
schedule property. Alleging that defendant - Smt.
Munivenkatamma had tried to interfere with his possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, he had
approached the Trial Court seeking the decree of
permanent injunction against her.
19. It is relevant to note here that in O.S.No.1176/1996,
the Trial Court has recorded a finding that plaintiff in the
said suit had failed to prove that he was put in possession
of the suit schedule property by defendant nos.1 & 2.
Copy of the agreement for sale dated 16.01.1982 is
produced at Ex.D-2 in the present suit and copy of the
registered General Power of Attorney said to have been
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996 in
favour of the father of the plaintiff is produced at Ex.P-7.
20. Perusal of the averments found in Ex.D-2 as well as
Ex.P-7 would go to show that there is no mention that late
S.Rayappan was put in possession of the suit schedule
property under the said document. On the other hand,
Smt. Munivenkatamma who is examined as DW-1 in
O.S.No.5402/2014 has produced necessary material
before the Trial Court to show that after the sale deed
dated 02.04.1994 (Ex.D-8) was executed in her favour,
she was put in possession of the suit schedule property.
She has also produced photograph of the house
constructed by her in the suit schedule property as Ex.D-
3. The electricity bills in respect of the electricity
connection to the house constructed in the suit schedule
property are produced by her as Exs.D-12 to D-31. Ex.D-
11 is the original of property tax register relating to the
suit schedule property. Exs.D-34 to D-40 are the water
bills which stand in the name of the defendant - Smt.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
Munivenkatamma. She has also produced property tax
paid receipts in respect of the suit schedule property.
21. Plaintiff, who has examined himself as PW-1, has not
produced any document before the Trial Court to show
that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property
at any point of time. It is relevant to note here that
plaintiff claims that his father Rayappan had executed the
sale deed - Ex.P-1 dated 26.05.2012 in his favour on the
strength of the General Power of Attorney said to have
been executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in
O.S.No.1176/1996. According to the plaintiff, the said
General Power of Attorney is coupled with interest, and
therefore, it is an irrevocable document. However, a
reading of the said document would go to show that no
consideration was paid under the said document by
S.Rayappan - plaintiff in O.S.No.1176/1996 to defendant
nos.1 & 2 in the said suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the said General Power of Attorney is an irrevocable
document.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
22. In addition to the same, the material on record would
go to show that the registered General Power of Attorney
which was executed by defendant nos.1 & 2 in
O.S.No.1176/1996 in favour of S.Rayappan was cancelled
by them by executing a registered deed of revocation of
general power of attorney on 18.04.1991. The original of
the said registered deed of revocation is produced at Ex.D-
7 by defendant - Smt. Munivenkatamma. The material on
record would also go to show that, defendant no.2 in
O.S.No.1176/1996 - Muniveerappa who allegedly had
executed General Power of Attorney in favour of
S.Rayappan, had died on 14.12.2001, which is much prior
to execution of the sale deed dated 26.05.2012 in favour
of the plaintiff by his father - S.Rayappan on the strength
of the General Power of Attorney executed by the
defendant nos.1 & 2 viz., Lakshmamma and
Muniveerappa, in O.S.No.1176/1996. Since Muniveerappa
was not alive as on the date of registration of sale deed
dated 26.05.2012 in favour of the plaintiff herein, it cannot
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
be said that plaintiff has derived a valid title, right and
interest over the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 26.05.2012 - Ex.P-1 executed
in his favour by his father Rayappan on the strength of the
General Power of Attorney executed by a dead person.
23. It is also relevant to note here that the sale deed
dated 26.05.2012 has been registered in favour of the
plaintiff in the present case by his father S.Rayappan
acting as the General Power of Attorney holder of
defendant nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1176/1996. Suit in
O.S.No.1176/1996 was filed by S.Rayappan against
defendant nos.1 & 2 and another seeking the relief of
specific performance of the agreement for sale dated
16.01.1982 said to have been executed in his favour by
defendant nos.1 & 2. After dismissal of the said suit, when
RFA.No.410/2004 filed by S.Rayappan was pending
consideration before this Court, the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated
26.05.2012 was executed in favour of the plaintiff in the
present case, and therefore, a doubt arises with regard to
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54463
HC-KAR
the title that has been passed on him under the said sale
deed dated 26.05.2012.
24. The Trial Court having appreciated all these aspects
of the matter, has dismissed O.S.No.5402/2014. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said
judgment and decree does not call for interference at the
hands of this Court and no grounds are made out by the
appellant to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the
following order:
25. R.F.A.No.410/2004 & R.F.A.No.1621/2022 are
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
