Karnataka High Court
M P Shyamsunder vs T R Ramachandraiah Since Dead By His Lrs on 9 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
RFA No. 521 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 521 OF 2017 (SP)
BETWEEN:
M.P.SHYAMSUNDER
S/O LATE M.PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.84, SOUNDARYA LAYOUT,
BEHIND ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
SEDEDAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 073.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABDUL KHADAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S,
Digitally signed by 1.
THEJAS KUMAR N T.R.SURESHBABU
Location: HIGH SON OF LATE T.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.58, 22/1,
1ST CROSS, SIDDESHWARA LAYOUT,
SEDEDAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560 073.
2. T.R.RAMESHCHAND
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SON OF LATE T.R.RAMACHANDRAIAH,
R/AT NO.10, SRI SAI KRISHNA NILAYA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
RFA No. 521 of 2017
HC-KAR
THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 095.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.V.SHASHIKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC, 1908.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Abdul Khadar., counsel for the appellant, and
Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, have
appeared in person.
2. For convenience's sake, the status and ranking of
the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial
Court.
3. This is an appeal from the Court of XVII Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16)
4. The plaint averments are as under:
The defendant - Sri.M.P.Shyamasunder is the son-in-law
of the original plaintiff - Sri.T.R.Ramachandraiah. Based on the
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
sale deed dated 27.05.2002, the defendant became the
absolute owner of the property bearing No.84, Sy.No.8, Katha
No.887, situated at Soundarya Layout, Near Meenakshi Layout,
Sededahalli, Nagasandra Post, Chikkabanavara Group
Panchayath, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet,
totally measuring 1200 square feet. The defendant acquired
the Schedule-A property with the assistance of the plaintiff and
further put up construction measuring 30 X 22 on the southern
portion of the Schedule-A property. The plaintiff and his family
members were residing along with the defendant in the said
house till the death of Smt.Venkatalakshmamma.
As things stood thus, the defendant intended to dispose
of the remaining portion of the suit Schedule-A property, i.e.,
the northern portion of the suit Schedule-A property measuring
East to West 30 feet and North to South 18 feet, referred to as
Schedule-B property. The defendant wanted to sell the same to
fulfill his family needs and to discharge the loan availed from
HDFC Bank. The plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase
the same, and the defendant offered to sell the Schedule-B
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the
plaintiff accepted the same.
In pursuance of the offer and acceptance, the defendant
executed an agreement for sale dated 22.04.2004 in favor of
the plaintiff, to which the wife of the defendant is also a
consenting witness. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount
of Rs.60,000/- being a part of the sale consideration on the
date of the agreement. The plaintiff has also put up a small
house in the Schedule-B property for his personal use. As per
the terms of the agreement, the defendant had agreed to
receive the balance sale consideration only after the defendant
discharges the entire loan availed by him from HDFC Bank, and
subsequently, the defendant would execute the sale deed in
favor of the plaintiff. It is stated that as of the date of the
agreement, the defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of
the Schedule-B property. The defendant requested the plaintiff
on 01.11.2004 for payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the balance
sale consideration, citing an urgent financial crisis. The plaintiff
accordingly paid the defendant by cash a sum of Rs.30,000/-,
which was duly acknowledged by executing an endorsement on
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
the aforesaid agreement to sell by both the defendant and his
wife. At the time of receipt of the said amount, the defendant
had pleaded his difficulty and further assured that he would
discharge the HDFC loan at the earliest and execute the sale
deed. The defendant and his wife once again approached the
plaintiff and demanded the payment of the balance sale
consideration of Rs.10,000/-, as the same was required to be
paid towards the loan borrowed from HDFC Bank. The plaintiff
believing the defendant and his wife and to secure the
registered sale deed has paid the balance sale consideration
amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant on 13.07.2007 by way
of cash after withdrawing a sum of Rs.35,000/- from his son's
savings Bank Account vide A/c No.1928 in Srinagar Credit Co-
operative Society Ltd., Bangalore. Hence, the plaintiff has paid
the entire sale consideration towards the purchase of the
scheduled property. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of
the entire sale consideration and promised that immediately he
would discharge the HDFC loan and would execute the Sale
Deed. However, in a close relationship between the plaintiff and
the defendant, an endorsement was not made for the receipt of
Rs.10,000/- on the agreement for sale. The plaintiff requested
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, the same
was postponed on one or the other pretext. Hence, the plaintiff
was constrained to issue a legal notice on 22.12.2008 calling
upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, to which the
defendant replied admitting the execution of the agreement.
However, he did not come forward and execute the sale deed.
Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the
Court of law and filed a suit seeking the relief of Specific
Performance.
After service of the summons, the defendant appeared
through his counsel and filed a written statement, and he
denied the execution of the agreement of sale and also the
receipt of the amount. He specifically contended that the suit
schedule property worth more than Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft. and it
was the only property earned by him. Among other grounds, he
prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues.
The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as
PW2 to 4, and documents were exhibited. On the other hand,
the defendant examined himself as DW1 and no documents
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree
dated 02.02.2017 decreed the suit and directed the defendant
to execute the sale deed in favor of plaintiff in respect of the
Schedule-B property in terms of agreement of sale dated
22.04.2004 by accepting the balance consideration amount of
Rs.10,000/- and defendant was also directed to handover the
vacant possession of the Schedule-B property to the plaintiff,
on failure, the defendant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff
is entitled to get the sale deed executed through the process of
the Court. Under these circumstances, the defendant has filed
the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
5. Counsel Sri.Abdul Khadar, for the appellant submits
that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court are contrary to
law and opposed to the documentary evidence on record.
Next, he submits that the burden is on the plaintiff to
prove the execution of the agreement for sale. However, he has
failed to do so by producing any cogent or acceptable evidence.
A further submission is made that the findings and the
observations of the Trial Court, including the statement made
by the defendant during cross-examination regarding his
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
signature, are also without any basis, as the burden of proving
the case rests on the plaintiff.
Counsel vehemently contended that there is a total non-
consideration of the case put forth by the defendant under
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and the Trial Court has not
properly exercised the discretionary powers.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is untenable in law and
the same is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits
that the appeal may be allowed.
6. Counsel Sri.G.V.Shashikumar, for the respondent,
justified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. He
submits that the appellant has not made any grounds to
interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. Counsel,
therefore, submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and
also the record with care.
7. The short point that would arise for consideration is
whether the Judgment of the Trial Court requires interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The issue revolves around the grant of relief of
specific performance. In this case, the plaintiffs sued to enforce
the specific performance of a Contract to execute a conveyance
in respect of the suit schedule-B property. In this appeal, the
main contention of the defendant is about the specific denial of
the execution of the agreement for sale and the endorsement
made on the 1st November, 2004.
Counsel Sri.Abdul Khadar., in presenting his argument,
vehemently contends that the defendant disputed the signature
over the agreement for sale and also on the endorsement. He
argued by saying that the second report of the handwriting
expert is clear in this regard.
By way of reply to this contention, counsel
Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., strenuously urged that the defendant in
the reply notice and cross-examination has admitted the
execution of the agreement for sale. As far as the handwriting
expert's opinion about the signatures, he argued by saying that
the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the report is beyond
the reference.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
The contention about the denial of the execution of the
agreement for sale and the handwriting expert's opinion is
noted with utmost care.
Suffice it to note that the plaintiff was constrained to
apply for Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC in I.A.No.8 on 06.01.2015
because of the inconsistent stand by the defendant. The Senior
Scientific Officer, Truth Labs, communicated to the Court on
12.11.2015 and requested the Court to make arrangements for
the procurement of admittedly genuine signatures. However, a
report/ opinion dated 21.12.2015 was forwarded to the Court
on 22.12.2015. In compliance with the requirement of hand
handwriting expert, the plaintiff filed a memo on 27.01.2016
and requested the Court to send the written statement,
vakalath, evidence affidavit filed by the defendant. The
defendant filed objections to the memo on 04.02.2016. The
Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2016 ordered to send the
documents as prayed in the memo. The Trial Court vide letter
dated 29.02.2016 forwarded the documents as sought by the
handwriting expert and requested for comparison of admitted
signatures with the disputed signatures of the defendant and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
his wife on the written statement, vakalath and Chief affidavit
of the defendant (DW1) and submit a report. Accordingly, the
handwriting expert submitted a second report on 14.04.2016 to
the Trial Court.
Ex.P.1 is the Agreement for sale dated 22.04.2004.
Defendant's signature was marked as Ex.P.1(a), Ex.P.1(g).
Similarly, the signature of the defendant's wife, Pushpalatha,
was marked as Ex.P.1(e) and Ex.P.1(j). The Trial Court sent
Ex.P.1 to the handwriting expert. In the report dated
21.12.2015, the handwriting expert opined that the red
enclosed signatures marked 'a' and 'g' are written by the same
person and the red enclosed signatures marked 'e' and 'j' are
written by the same person. However, after sending other
documents, the handwriting expert submitted a report dated
14.04.2016, and opined that the person who wrote the red
enclosed signatures marked 'S1 to S19' did not write the red
enclosed signatures marked 'Q1 to Q4'.
A good deal of argument is canvassed about the admitted
and disputed signatures, and also about the report/ opinion of
the Truth Labs. A perusal of the letter addressed by the Court
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
to the Commissioner dated 29.02.2016 depicts that a reference
was made to the handwriting expert to compare the admitted
signatures with the disputed signatures of the defendant and
his wife in written statement, vakalath and Chief affidavit of
defendant (DW1) showing his signatures and submit a report.
The Commissioner gave the report stating that the defendant
did not sign the agreement for sale as if he were the Presiding
Officer of a Civil Court. In my view, the conclusion of the Trial
Court that the handwriting expert acted beyond the scope of
the reference is just and proper.
As already noted above, plaintiff sued to enforce the
specific performance of a Contract to execute a conveyance in
respect of the Schedule-B suit property. The Trial Court framed
as many as seven issues, and the issues regarding the
execution of the agreement for sale and readiness and
willingness were answered in favour of the plaintiff. In cross-
examination, there is a clear admission by DW1 regarding the
issuance of the reply notice, its contents, and his signatures on
the agreement for sale on all pages. He also admits that he
knows Mr.Veerachar, one of the witnesses to the endorsement
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24915
HC-KAR
dated November 1, 2004. The circumstances would justify the
interference by a Court to order for specific performance. The
Trial Court extenso, referred to the material on record and
rightly concluded that the plaintiff's suit must be decreed. I find
no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the
Trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
liable to be rejected.
9. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is rejected.
Because of rejection of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications, if any, are disposed of and the interim order if any
stands discharged.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
