- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2014 (SP) BETWEEN: R VEERESH S/O. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AT NO.50, SREE GANDHA, 1ST MIAN, "A" BLOCK, J.P NAGARA, MYSORE 570008 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K R KRISHNAMURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARICHENNEGOWDA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O KARICHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. KUMARA S/O KARICHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 4. MAHESH S/O KARICHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SOUBHAGYA W/O YOGESH, D/O KARICHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. DINESH S/O KARICHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MARTHIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 571311 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R6; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R5) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.6.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.484/2008 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 passed in O.S.No.484/2008 instituted by the appellant / plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2006 - Ex.P2. The said agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for sale of the suit schedule property for a sum of ₹29,97,000/- and a sum of ₹4,00,000/- was paid as earnest money through a cheque. There is no dispute regarding the receipt of ₹4,00,000/- by the defendants as earnest money. Under the agreement of sale, it was also agreed between the parties that the balance sale consideration should be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed. Another stipulation in the agreement was that the sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 transaction should be completed within a period of three months from the date of the agreement. 2. The plaintiff had issued a notice on 29.09.2006 calling upon the defendants to furnish the documents and to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants sent reply to the said notice and thereafter, the plaintiff wrote another letter dated 01.09.2007 reiterating the readiness and willingness to purchase the suit schedule property. 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues for determination; ISSUES: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Defendant No. 1 to 6 executed Agreement of Sale deed dated 30.06.2006 agreeing to sell the suit Schedule Property for a sum of Rs.25,97,000/- and on the very same day received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as advance and despite notice issued calling upon to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration the Defendants have refused to do so. 2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is always ready to perform his contractual duties? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 3. Whether the Defendant No. 1, 2, 4 & 6 prove that as stated in their Written Statement, the Defendant no. 1, 2, 4 & 6 were possession of all? 4. Whether the Defendant No.1, 2, 4 & 6 proves that time is essence of the contract and that the Plaintiff has failed to follow the same? 5. Whether the Defendant no.1, 2, 4 & 6 prove that as the Plaintiff is not an agriculturist he does not have authority to purchase agricultural property, hence the agreement of sale entered into between them is contrary to law? 6. Whether the Defendant No. 3 & 5 prove that, that they are not bound to any transaction entered into between Plaintiff and other Defendants and they are not party to the agreement, there is not privity of contract between plaintiff & them. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Which party will suffer greater harm if a decree for specific performance is granted or not granted? What relief are the parties entitled to? ADDITIONAL ISSUE: 1. Whether the defendant No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 prove that, the suit is not maintainable as the suit schedule property has been declared as Green Zone or land within purview of Green Belt?" 4. Sofar as issue No.2 is concerned, whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his contractual duties, the Trial Court has recorded the finding that the time was the essence of the contract. The plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 had failed to prove that despite of his demand for execution of the sale deed by the defendants in his favour and refusal of the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff failed to prove his readiness to perform his part of the contract. 5. The point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the plaintiff could prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract ie., he was in a position to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendants. 6. We have perused the evidence produced before the Trial Court to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 7. There is not even an iota of evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove his readiness to perform his part of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50577-DB RFA No. 1514 of 2014 the contract. When the plaintiff himself was not in a position to perform his part of the contract, he could not have asked for a specific performance by the defendants. 8. In view thereof, we do not find that the Trial Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit for specific performance. Thus, we confirm the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11