- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT V MANJULA @ K MANJULA W/O H V GOPAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NEAR TB, HIRISAVE VILLAGE AND HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA - 573 116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H G RAMESH S/O LATE H V GANGADHARAN @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SMT H G VIJAYA W/O LATE H V GANGADHARAN @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. SMT H G GEETHA W/O MURALIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/O DOOR NO.305 SFRC FINGER POST ODAKAMANADALAM NILGIRIS DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-643 001. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.12/2021 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.46/2011 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.46/2011 confirmed in R.A.No.12/2021 seeking for specific enforcement of an agreement to sale dated 29.10.2003 in respect of the following immovable property hereinafter referred to as suit properties: SCHEDULE 12 1/2 guntas with a house in Sy.No.140 of Hirisave Village and Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, bounded on the East : Property of Jayaram - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 West : B.M.Road North : B.M.Road South : B.M.Road 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents. 3. The facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking before the Court below. 3.2 The plaintiff contented that the defendant is the owner of the suit property and he had agreed to sell the suit property in her favour and sale price was fixed at ₹1,00,000/- out of which a sum of ₹50,000/- was paid as advance amount and written agreement came into existence between them on 29.10.2003. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 4. It is further contended that brothers of the defendants have received some of ₹ 8,000/- subsequently in the month of March 2005 and the defendant went on postponing the execution of the sale deed. Clause 10 of the agreement of sale, contemplated a situation that if there is a failure on the part of the defendant in completing the formality of the registration, the plaintiff had the right to seek performance and therefore, plaintiff approached the Court for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell in respect of the suit property. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and engaged the services of the Advocate and filed detailed statement denying the plaint averments in toto except admitting the execution of the agreement. 6. During the pendency of the suit, defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, heard arguments in detail, held that plaintiff failed to prove that suit was in time disbelieving the contention of the plaintiff that there was no time fixed as per Clause 10 of the suit agreement. 8. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No. 12/2021. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence placed on record, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff interalia holding in Para Nos.26 to 29 as under: 10. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed this suit on 27.01.2011 after lapse of 7 years from the date fixed for completion of contract. The plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant on 22.11.2010 as it could be seen from Ex.P.3 demanding him to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 consideration amount. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff has issued the said demand notice after lapse of 6 years 10 months from the date fixed for performance of contract. The plaintiff in her cross­examination has also admitted that she filed this suit on 27.01.2011. Further she has admitted that on 22.11.2010 for the first time she issued legal notice to the defendant. Therefore, the conduct of the plaintiff shows that she has kept quite nearly 7 years without taking any action against the defendant in order to get the execution of registered Sale Deed in her favour with respect to suit property. Therefore, it is clear that there is total inaction on the part of the plaintiff to perform her part of contract. The readiness and willingness indicates that the agreement holder is always eager to get execution of sale deed in his favour by performing his part of contract within stipulated time. Therefore, the plaintiff must show her ready and willingness to perform her part of contract right from the date of agreement till the date of deciding the case. But in this case, there is no any such effort from the plaintiff. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 11. As already stated supra, the plaintiff in her cross­ examination has clearly admitted that she did not perform her part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/­ in favour of the deceased defendant. Therefore, the very admission clearly goes to show that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Though the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 receipts, but on perusal of these documents would show that the brother of the defendant and his wife received sum of Rs.8,000/­ from the plaintiff. In this regard the plaintiff has examined attesting witness of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 as PW.3. But these two documents are not at all related to the deceased defendant. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff. 12. From Ex.P.5 it appears that the deceased defendant issued reply to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract within stipulated time. The contents of Ex.P.5 supports the version of defendant that the plaintiff was not ready and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 willing to perform her part of contract. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly answered Issue No.2 in the negative. 13. It is the main contention of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. As per Article 54 of Limitation Act, the time limit to file suit for Specific Performance of Contract is 3 years from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. Admittedly, as per Ex.P.7 the time limit to complete the contract was 3 months. Therefore, the time was the essence of the contract. The time limit to complete the contract came to an end on 29.01.2004. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 27.01.2011. She would have filed the suit on or before 29.01.2007. But she has filed the present suit after lapse of 4 years from the date of limitation. Therefore, it is clear that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the Law of Limitation. Therefore, in my opinion, the Trial Court has rightly answered Issue No.3 in the affirmative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 14. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: GROUNDS The impugned judgments are not sustainable either in law or on facts and liable to be set­aside in limine. The impugned judgments are capricious, perverse and contrary to the law and facts and hence liable to be set­aside. The courts below have not properly appreciated the material on record and the evidence on record and had erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant. The courts below have erred in dismissing the suit in entirety solely on the ground that, the alternative relief is not sought. The courts below have further exercised the discretion by granting alternative rellef in the absence of the specific prayer and therefore, the judgment and decrees are not sustainable. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 The courts have failed to appreciate that, the execution of the sale agreement was admitted and receipt of part sale consideration is also admitted and therefore, the courts below ought to have decreed the suit for specific performance. The defendant have also admitted that, he was required to obtain survey sketch and revenue documents and he has not discharged his burden and therefore, readiness and willingness was not there on the part of the defendant and therefore, the courts below ought to have decreed the suit. The courts below have erred in holding that, the suit is barred by law of limitation without looking into Article 54 of the Limitation Act and the factum of refusal was only made known to appellant when the reply notice was issued. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Whether the courts below were justified in suit of the plaintiff when the sale agreement is admitted and receipt of sale consideration is admitted ? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 Whether the courts below were justified in holding that, the suit is barred by limitation when the refusal was made known to the plaintiff under Ex P5 a reply notice ? 15. Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that both the Courts did not properly appreciate the intention of the parties and wrongly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation ignoring Clause 10 of the sale agreement. 16. He further emphasized that defendant was required to complete the formalities of getting the title perfected and getting necessary permissions and therefore, the time to seek specific performance would commence from the date when the defendant actually informing the plaintiff about the perfection of the title. Therefore, dismissal of the suit on the ground that suit is filed after 7 years of the sale agreement has thus resulted - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 17. This Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the contentions heard on behalf of the plaintiff. 18. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly there is no material evidence placed on record as to what was the deficiency in the title and when the plaintiff called upon the defendant to make good the title and seek for the specific enforcement. 19. Further, payment of ₹8,000/- in the month of March 2005 to the brothers of the defendant is of no avail for the plaintiff to seek that the time to complete the sale transaction as per the sale agreement got extended. 20. Further, plaintiff is unable to show that what efforts did plaintiff has made till the filing of suit to seek for specific enforcement of the contract. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38493 RSA No. 18 of 2024 21. Contents of Ex.P5 - Reply notice makes the things clear about the contention of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and suit could not be filed on account of the failure of the defendant in getting the title perfected. Therefore, when there is a claim of the plaintiff specifically to enforce the suit agreement after 7 years, the dismissal of the suit by both the Courts, does not require any further interference by this Court having regard to the scope of Section 100 CPC. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed: ORDER Appeal is meritless and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52