- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.386/2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. AREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R. AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 1(a) B.A. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE AREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. BYRASANDRA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI VAJANAKURIKE POST KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129. 2. RANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R. 2(a) RANGEGOWDA B.R. S/O LATE RANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. BYRASANDRA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI VAJANAKURIKE POST KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129. 3. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 4. B.A. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. ALL ARE SONS OF LATE ARERANGEGOWDA APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 ARE R/AT. BYRASANDRA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH, ADV., FOR SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADV.,) AND: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE ERACHODAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. GIDDAYYANAPALYA VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI, PATHKALAHALLI POST KORATAGERE TALUK. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.K. K. MAHESH, ADV.,) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS SECOND APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.313/2004 BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-V, MADHUGIRI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2000 IN O.S.51/1993 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, KORATAGERE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 'REPORTING SETTLEMENT/DICTATING JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for specific performance. 2. This appeal is by the defendants. The appeal was admitted on 11.09.2013 to answer the following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court granting a decree of specific performance of contract against the appellants sustainable, in the absence of respondent/plaintiff offering to prove his readiness and willingness to fulfill his part of the obligation as envisaged under Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act? 2) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are sustainable in the absence of a specific finding that defendants are not entitled to benefit of Clause (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act? 3) Whether the agreement on the basis of the suit filed was enforceable in law, as it appears it was sought to be enforced more than 3 years after expiry of the period stipulated and thus hit by Article 54 of the Limitation Act? 4) Whether the agreement Ex.P1 was enforceable in law, in view of admitted clause that it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 would be enforceable only on repeal of particular enactment?" 3. The suit is filed to enforce the agreement for sale dated 20.08.1984 said to have been executed by father of defendants namely Are Rangegowda. The plaintiff claims that the agreement was executed in favour of her husband for a sum of Rs.6,500/-. 4. The extent of the property covered under the alleged agreement for sale is 1 acre 27 guntas out of 3 acres 14 guntas in Sy.No.30/2, Pathaganahalli Village, Koratagere Taluk. 5. It is stated that as on the date of agreement for sale, there was a prohibition to transfer the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (for short 'Act, 1966'). It is averred in the agreement for sale that the vendor has to sell the property after restrictions under the Act, 1966 being removed. The said document is marked as Ex.P1. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 agreement also reveals that the possession of the property is transferred to plaintiff’s husband. 6. The plaintiff claims that her husband had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.6,500/- on 20.08.1984 itself and plaintiff’s husband came in possession of the suit property. On 11.01.1988, the plaintiff’s husband died. Plaintiff claims that she succeeded to the estate of her husband and the right to sue survives on her. 7. The father of the defendants i.e. Are Rangegowda died in 1984 itself. The plaintiff claims that the prohibition to transfer the land under the Act, 1966 came to an end when the Act was repealed in 1991 and the suit is filed on 20.02.1993. 8. It is also averred that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. 9. The defendants contested the suit. The execution of the agreement dated 20.08.1984 by Are Rangegowda is disputed by the defendants. The defendants took the defence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 of total denial. It is also stated that Are Rangegowda, who died in 1984 due to ill health, was not keeping well a year prior to his death and was bedridden and was not in a position to hear and also not in a position take rational decisions. 10. The Trial Court has framed 9 issues and 3 additional issues and the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement for sale dated 20.08.1984 is established by the plaintiff. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that there was a restriction for registration of the sale deed when the agreement was executed in the year 1984. 11. Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the vendor Are Rangegowda delivered the possession of the property to the husband of the plaintiff. 12. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 13. The defendants preferred appeal. First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants would submit that the agreement for sale is not duly established. The plaintiff has not established the readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract and the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not considered the defence in the light of Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 15. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not filed within 3 years from the date of execution of agreement for sale and the agreement at Ex.P1 itself is unenforceable because of the bar contained in the Act of 1966. Thus, it is urged that the appeal is to be allowed and the suit is to be dismissed. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent would urge that when the agreement for sale was entered into on 20.08.1984, because of the implication of the Act, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 1966, the property could not have been sold by registering the sale deed in the name of the plaintiff's husband. Thus, the vendor, i.e., Are Rangegowda agreed to transfer the property once the restrictions on alienation were removed. 17. It is his submission that the Act was repealed in 1991 and the suit is filed in 1993, within 3 years from the date of restrictions being removed and the suit is in time. It is also submitted that the Act, 1966 did not prohibit the transfer of property without any registration. What is prohibited is the execution of registered sale deed by creating a fragment. Thus, agreement for sale is not barred under the Act, 1966. 18. It is also urged that the grounds under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act are not available as the defendants have not raised any specific defence to attract the aforementioned clauses. 19. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 20. Though the defendants have raised a defence that Are Rangegowda was not capable of understanding the consequences a year before his death and he died within few months after the execution of alleged agreement, the defence relating to his ill-health and alleged inability to understand the contents of the agreement are not established. Both Courts, on appreciation of evidence have concluded that the agreement for sale is established and delivery of possession is also established. 21. It is also required to notice that as on the date of the agreement for sale dated 20.08.1984, the Act, 1966 was in force which prohibited the registered sale deed in respect of the property to which the Act, 1966 was applicable. 22. There is no dispute that the Act of 1966 was repealed in 1991. Thus, all the rights and obligations created under the said Act were also repealed and the restrictions for transfer of the property also came to an end. The suit is filed within 3 years from the date of repeal. Agreement provides - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 that the vendor has to sell the property after the restrictions are removed. 23. Though the learned counsel for the defendants would urge that the readiness and willingness is not established, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not filed the suit within a reasonable time after the removal of restriction in 1991, it is to be noticed that the agreement for sale itself would reveal that entire sale consideration of Rs.6,500/- is paid to the defendants' ancestor namely Are Rangegowda. Thus, nothing much is required to be stated by the plaintiff to establish the readiness and willingness in performing her part of the contract. 24. Since a specific defence is not raised to attract Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and evidence is not led to substantiate such contention, this Court is of the view that the defendants are not entitled to claim any relief under Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 25. This Court also does not find any specific provision which would come in the way of accepting the defendants' contention that Ex.P1 was unenforceable because of the Act, 1966. Though the Act of 1966 prevented transfer of fragmented land and creation of other fragments, the Act, 1966 was repealed in the year 1991 and the suit is filed in 1993 and both the Courts have concurrently held that the execution of agreement for sale is proved. Hence, this Court does not find any error requiring interference in the Second Appeal. 26. The property was agreed to be sold for Rs.6,500/- The defendants have raised a contention that the value of property has shot up and equity does not lie in favour of the purchaser. Though it is true that the value of property is shot up considerably it is also required to be seen that the plaintiff's husband has paid the entire consideration amount in 1984 itself. 27. The learned counsel for the respondent, on instruction would submit that without admitting any liability, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 the respondent would pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellants. Said submission is placed on record. 28. Hence, the following: ORDER (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The impugned judgment and decree dated 05.07.2000 in O.S.No.51/1993 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Koratagere and the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 in RA. No.313/2004 on the file of Fast Track Court - V, Madhugiri are affirmed. (3) The suit of the plaintiff seeking specific performance is decreed. (4) Since the plaintiff has come forward to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants on her own without admitting the liability, the plaintiff shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendants within three months from today. The amount shall be deposited before the Trial Court with due notice to the defendants. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35092 R.S.A. No.386/2013 (5) The defendants shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within three months from today. (6) The amount to be deposited shall be released in favour of the defendants. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13