- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2025 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SHARADA WIFE OF LATE D.K. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. LOKESH SON OF LATE D.K. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF DASJJANAHATTI HAMLET VILLAGE, SEERANAKATTE, MAADADAKEREHOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA –DISTRICT – 577 527 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHAIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. A.V. CHANDRAMMA W/O B. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NEAR BAJJAPPANAHATTI, OPPOSITE R.P. COLLEGE HOSADURGA TOWN, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK- 577527 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED IN RA No.8/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2023 PASSED IN OS No.8/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants who are the legal representatives of original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 passed in R.A.No.08/2023 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga and the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.8/2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Hosaudrga. 2. For convenience parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.8.00 lakhs and accordingly the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards the advance sale consideration amount and it was agreed that the sale deed to be executed within 5 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement by receiving balance consideration amount. Accordingly, an unregistered agreement of sale was executed on 19.06.2017. The plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, defendant did not perform his part of contract. It is contended that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff got - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 issued a legal notice on 22.03.2018 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant replied to the said legal notice giving untenable grounds and tried to alienate the suit property. Hence, a cause of action arose for plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement dated 19.06.2017 in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff was/is always not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is stated that the plaintiff has not paid balance sale consideration amount within 5 months from the date of execution of sale agreement. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined the general power of attorney holder as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the other hand, the defendant examined herself as DW-1 but no documents are marked. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit for specific performance of a contract and directed the defendant to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the plaintiff with 2% interest per annum, from the date of agreement till the realization. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for specific performance of a contract, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.8/2023. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and reassessing the evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 18.12.2024. The legal representatives of the plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the plaintiff submits that the defendant has admitted the execution of sale agreement. The trial Court ought to have decreed the suit for specific performance of a contract, on the contrary, dismissed the suit for specific performance of the contract. He submits that the plaintiff has established that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract issued a legal notice on 22.03.2018. The defendant replied to the legal notice. The plaintiff has established that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The said fact was not been properly considered by the Courts below. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. There is no dispute regarding the execution of the sale agreement by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. To establish his case, the plaintiff produced documents Ex.P.1 is the GPA executed in favour of PW-1 i.e., S.R. Lokesh, Ex.P.2 is the legal notice dated 22.03.2018, issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, Ex.P.3 is the reply notice, Ex.P.4 is the unregistered sale agreement dated 19.06.2017, Ex.P.5 is the challan and Ex.P.6 is the RTC extract. As per Ex.P.4, the plaintiff was supposed to pay the entire balance consideration within 5 months from the date of sale agreement. However, the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration amount within time stipulated in the sale agreement. On the contrary, after the expiry of 9 months, issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to perform his part of contract. The defendant replied to the legal notice and further the plaintiff to establish that he is/was possessing - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 a sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the defendant, has neither pleaded about his financial capacity, nor produced any records. Plaintiff has failed to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance consideration amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs to the defendant. 11. Thus, both the Courts below have categorically recorded findings that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and rightly passed the impugned judgments. The relief of specific performance of a contract is discretionary relief. The same cannot be granted merely the plaintiff has proceed the execution of the sale agreement. The plaintiff failed to prove the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Performance of Contract. The Courts below have rightly exercised the judicial discretion and passed the impugned judgments. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17832 RSA No. 387 of 2025 12. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial questions of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 passed in R.A.No.08/2023 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga and judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.8/2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Hosaudrga are confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal I.A.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK