- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 843 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. SANTHOSH S/O LATE M. RAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MARASUR VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562125. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY .V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M. HEMA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. PADMAMMA W/O LATE HEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI. YASHWANTH S/O LATE HEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125. 3. SRI. JAYRAM S/O K.T. MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125. 4. SRI. SIDDAPURA SRINIVASA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O RAMAKRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 380, GULLAREDDY LAYOUT CHANDAPURA CIRCLE, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD ATTIBELE HOBLI, CHANDRAPURA POST ANEKAR TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099. [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.P. SOMOSHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MANIVANNAN .G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3; SMT. P.SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH KUMAR .V, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2022 PASSED IN OS No.352/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff who has challenged the dismissal of the suit filed in O.S.No.352/2006. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: Plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on a sale agreement dated 10.11.1996. Plaintiff claimed that defendants agreed to sell a portion of the land in Sy.No.537 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas. Plaintiff further specifically pleaded that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.5,40,000/- per acre or Rs.13,500/- per gunta which was an agreed total sale consideration subject to determination of actual extent of the land which was agreed to be sold under the sale agreement dated 10.11.1996. Pursuant to sale agreement, plaintiff claims that he has paid in all Rs.9,45,000/- on different dates and plaintiff is required to pay only a meagre balance sale consideration subject to defendants concluding the transaction by executing sale deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Plaintiff in the plaint has further contended that when he got the property surveyed through a competent surveyor, the disputed property agreed to be sold was found to be measuring only 1 acre 29 guntas and having noticed reduction of measurement, brought to the notice of the defendants and insisted defendants to complete the transaction and repay the excess amount in excess of the extent. Plaintiff specifically pleaded that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Plaintiff alleged that defendants have failed to conclude the transaction. Hence, plaintiff caused a legal notice on 15.11.2000. However, defendant No.2 evaded the notice sent through RPAD. Hence, the present suit. On receipt of summons, the original defendant No.1 - Hema Reddy and his brother, defendant No.2 filed written statement and admitted the transaction. The original defendant No.1 - Hema Reddy and his brother, defendant No.2, however, alleged that plaintiff was not ready and willing to complete his part of contract. Defendants - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 contended that plaintiff has suppressed material facts. Defendants alleged that one Munireddy and plaintiff are real estate agents by profession and since plaintiff and said Munireddy have sustained loss in real estate business, plaintiff had no financial resources to pay balance sale consideration and therefore, it is the plaintiff who has not stuck to the terms and conditions of the agreement and therefore, defendants alleged that there is a breach and since plaintiff was not interested in concluding the transaction and expressed his inability to pay balance sale consideration, defendants paid the advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendants alleged that they called upon plaintiff to take remaining balance advance amount and return original documents which were still with the plaintiff and one Munireddy. Defendants have also contended the plaintiff's version that pursuant to the suit agreement, the extent was found to be lesser than indicated in the sale agreement is also seriously disputed. At para 11 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 written statement, defendants claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.537 originally measured 5 acres 21 guntas which originally belonged to the plaintiff's family. Pursuant to partition in the family, plaintiff's father Ramareddy was allotted 1 acre 37 guntas and father of vendors of defendants was also allotted 2 acres 1 gunta and the remaining extent was allotted to one Veera Reddy. The defendants therefore contended that this reduction in extent is only to get over the delay in not performing their contract. On these set of grounds, the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit. The legal heirs of defendant No.1 after demise of defendant No.1 filed written statement. Interestingly, they disputed the very transaction alleging that defendant No.2 in collusion with plaintiff have created this concocted suit agreement and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Plaintiff and defendants led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the negative and held that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. While answering issue No.3 in the negative, trial Court held that defendants failed to prove that time was essence of contract and they were entitled to repudiate the agreement and forfeit the advancement. Additional issue Nos.1 to 3 wherein a burden was cast on the legal heirs of defendant No.1 regarding the transaction being fraudulent and the suit agreement being created and forged was answered against the legal heirs of defendant No.1. Trial Court has dismissed the suit, though defendants acknowledged the receipt of defendants sale consideration. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has vehemently argued and taken this Court through the shara found in the agreement of sale marked at Ex.P-1. Referring to the shara, he would point out that after - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 executing suit agreement, defendants have received substantial payment on various dates. He would point out that in all plaintiff has paid Rs.9,45,000/- as on 28.09.1998 and therefore, he would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court on readiness and willingness suffers from perversity and warrants interference. Referring to Ex.P-9, he would point out that defendants kept on assuring that the extent indicated in Ex.P-9 would be rectified and the transaction would be concluded. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has laid emphasis on the original written statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Referring to para 3 to 7, he would point out that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have acknowledged the transaction. They have also acknowledged the advance sale consideration paid by the plaintiff and it is not in dispute. The defendants have come up with a statement that plaintiff failed to conclude the transaction and he had no financial capacity and that prompted the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 defendants to return part of the advance amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and while defendants were willing to pay the balance advance sale consideration of Rs.4,45,000/-. 6. Referring to these significant details, he would point out that the payment made subsequent would clearly demonstrate that the time was not the essence of contract and in view of substantial reduction of the extent which was indicated by the surveyor vide Ex.P-9, the defendants were obliged to secure rectification as the substantial sale consideration was already paid by the plaintiff to the entire extent measuring 2 acres 1 guntas. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Others1. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants has vehemently argued and contended that readiness and willingness has to be considered and 1 Civil Appeal No.5110 of 2021 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 the conditions stipulated in the suit agreement and the recitals in the suit agreement clearly constitute that transaction was to be concluded within three months and there was no obligation on the defendants. Referring to para 4 to 11 of the original written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, though she would fairly concede that the transaction is admitted and payment of advance sale consideration is also acknowledged, plaintiff referring to shara indicated in the suit agreement found on each page recording subsequent payment, she would point out that mere subsequent payment after execution of suit agreement will not constitute readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. The suit agreement is dated 10.11.1996 and therefore, she would point out that the legal notice issued on 15.11.2000 is of no consequence and these details constitute failure on the part of the plaintiff in exhibiting his readiness and willingness. 8. Referring to the reasons recorded by the trial Court while answering issue No.1 in the negative, she - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 would point out that plaintiff had no funds and this aspect is dealt by the learned Judge by taking cognizance of the admission elicited in cross-examination. She would further point out that since the genuineness for executing agreement to sell was to construct a house, time was the essence of contract and therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court may not warrant any interference and therefore, dismissal of the suit is in accordance with law and no indulgence is warranted. 9. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Others2 and Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu vs. Davarasety Manmadha Rao3. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for 2 Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2023 3 Civil Appeal No.434 of 2013 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 respondent Nos.1 to 3. The following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness suffers from perversity and warrants interference? 2) Whether trial Court having held that time is not the essence of contract and therefore, defendants were not entitled to repudiate the agreement and claim forfeiture, erred in declining to grant discretionary relief of specific performance? 3) Whether the finding of the trial Court that court fee paid by the plaintiff is incorrect suffers from perversity and warrants interference? Finding on point Nos.1 and 2: 11. Before this Court delves into the case on hand, this Court deems it fit to extract the sharas which would have a direct bearing on the plaintiff's assertion in regard to readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Shara No.1 "¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨ÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ vÉÆA§vÉÛüÀ £ÉAiÀÄ E¸À« d£ÀªÀj ªÀiÁºÉ vÁjÃRÄ ªÀÄƪÀvÉÆÛÃAzÀÄ gÀ®Äè (31-1-1997) ¸ÀeÁð¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ºÉÆç½, PÀÆqÀÄè UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ K.T. ªÀÄĤgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ M. ºÉêÀiÁ gÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M. dAiÀÄgÁA DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÀAqÀ PÀæAiÀÄ zÁgÀjAzÀ R. ¸ÀAvÉÆõï gÀªÀjAzÀ F ¢£À £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À zÀgÀzÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÁzÀÝjAzÀ, F ¥ÀvÀæ zÀ°è PÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄ®R £ÀUÀzÀÄ UËgïߪÉÄAmï JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ F vÁjÃTUÉ £Á®ÄÌ ®PÀë vÉÆA§vÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛ JAzÀÄ §gɬĹPÉÆlÖ ºÀt ¸ÀAzï µÀgÁ ¸À»." Shara No.2 "¢£ÁAPÀ 1.5.97 gÀAzÀÄ R. ¸ÀAvÉÆõï gÀªÀjAzÀ ºÉêÀiÁgÉrØ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ 1,00,000 (MAzÀÄ ®PÀë) gÀÆ. £ÀUÀzÁV ¥Àr¢gÀÄvÉÛ£É. G½zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 10.5.97gÀ M¼ÀUÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ." Shara No.3 "¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨ÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ vÉÆA§vÉÛ¼ÀÄ £É. E¸À« dÆ£ï ªÀiÁºÉà E¥ÀàvÉÛüÀgÀ°è (27-6-1997) ¸ÀeÁð¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½ PÀÆqÀÄè UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ K.T. ªÀÄĤgÉrØ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ M. ºÉêÀiÁgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M. dAiÀÄgÁA DzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÀAqÀ PÀæAiÀiÁzÁgÀjAzÀ R. ¸ÀAvÉÆõï gÀªÀjAzÀ F ¢£À £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À zÀgÀzÀÄ §UÉÎ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÝjAzÀ, F ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ UËgïߪÉÄAmï LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë aPï ¹ArPÉmï ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄgÀ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå N/24 No.011948 vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É F vÁjÃTUÉ KRAiÀÄ ®PÀë £À®ªÀvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ (7,45,000) £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 12. The primary foundation of the plaintiff's case rests on the agreement to sell dated 10.11.1996, under which the plaintiff agreed to purchase a portion of land in Sy.No.537 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas for a total consideration calculated at Rs.5,40,000/- per acre. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has pleaded and demonstrated through oral and documentary evidence that a total sum of Rs.9,45,000/- was paid pursuant to the execution of the agreement. 13. A bare perusal of the sharas (acknowledgements) recorded on the reverse of the agreement to sell (Ex.P-1), as well as the endorsements found on the inner pages, unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiff has made multiple payments to the defendants over a period of time after the execution of the agreement. These endorsements bear the signatures of the original defendants and acknowledge the receipt of specific amounts on various dates. These payments were made well beyond the initial execution date of the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 agreement, which clearly evidences the continued intention of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The cumulative effect of these sharas reflects not only acknowledgment of payment but also the assurance by the defendants that the transaction would be concluded upon rectification of the extent discrepancy. 14. The fact that substantial payments were made post execution of the agreement and were recorded in the agreement itself constitutes significant proof of plaintiff’s ongoing commitment. The oral evidence of the plaintiff, read with these documentary endorsements, substantially satisfies the dual requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act that the plaintiff must aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The assertion of readiness and willingness has also been made in the plaint, which remained consistent throughout the suit proceedings. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 15. In contrast, the original defendants, defendant No.1-Hema Reddy and his brother defendant No.2, not only admitted the execution of the agreement but also acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.9,45,000/-. In paragraphs 3 to 7 of their original written statement, they clearly admit the transaction and the payments made. Their only defence was that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount, and for that reason, they treated the agreement as terminated and returned Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This story of unilateral termination and refund remains unsupported by any documentary proof of such return. Further, even this narrative is inconsistent with the later written statements filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.1. 16. The legal heirs of defendant No.1, who were subsequently impleaded after his death, chose to take a completely contrary stand by disowning the very existence of the agreement. They alleged that the suit agreement - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 was a fraudulent document created by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.2. However, significantly, these legal heirs failed to step into the witness box. The burden to substantiate allegations of fraud, fabrication, and collusion rests heavily on the party asserting it. In the absence of any oral evidence or cogent documentary material, the plea of fraud raised by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 remains wholly unsubstantiated and lacks credibility. It is well settled that failure to enter the witness box, particularly when serious allegations are made, gives rise to an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. 17. The conduct of the parties also supports the plaintiff’s case. The issuance of the legal notice on 15.11.2000 by the plaintiff, although belated, must be seen in the backdrop of continued assurances and dealings between the parties. Ex.P-9, which is the survey sketch obtained by the plaintiff, reveals that the actual extent of land available was only 1 acre 29 guntas. The plaintiff - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 promptly brought this to the notice of the defendants and called upon them to rectify the title and conclude the sale. This further evidences plaintiff’s active involvement in completing the transaction. The plaintiff’s conduct is consistent with that of a person who has invested substantial sums of money and is awaiting performance from the other side. The delay in issuing notice must, therefore, be considered inconsequential in the peculiar facts of the case. 18. It is further relevant to note that the trial Court, while answering Issue No.3, has categorically held that the defendants failed to prove that time was the essence of the contract. Once this finding is returned, the Court ought to have objectively appreciated the consistent conduct of the plaintiff in making payments post-agreement and seeking performance based on the ascertained extent. Instead, the trial Court appears to have been swayed by the unsubstantiated plea that the plaintiff lacked funds, this inference was drawn solely based on admissions - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 allegedly elicited in cross-examination without weighing it against the objective conduct evidenced in sharas and receipts. 19. On a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has substantiated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract not only through his consistent stand in the pleadings and oral testimony, but more significantly, by effecting multiple payments to the defendants from time to time, all of which have been duly acknowledged and endorsed on the very agreement to sell marked at Ex.P-1. These subsequent endorsements made by the defendants themselves unequivocally acknowledge receipt of further payments after the execution of the agreement dated 10.11.1996, thereby lending strong corroboration to the plaintiff’s bona fides and continued intention to complete the transaction. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 20. It is pertinent to note that the original agreement of sale was in respect of an extent of 2 acres 1 guntas for a total consideration at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per gunta, and an initial advance of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement. The additional payments made by the plaintiff, and duly acknowledged by the defendants through endorsements, further reinforce the plaintiff’s continuous performance under the contract and negate any suggestion of abandonment or unwillingness. The oral conduct of the parties, when read in conjunction with these endorsements and the documentary evidence, clearly indicate that the plaintiff was pursuing completion of the sale earnestly and diligently. 21. The survey report marked at Ex.P-9, which temporarily disclosed a shortfall in extent, justified the plaintiff’s insistence on seeking rectification prior to conclusion of the sale. The plaintiff’s insistence in this regard appears reasonable and bona fide, particularly in - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 the light of the fact that the competent authority, i.e., the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR), has subsequently rectified the extent and restored it to the original extent of 2 acres 1 gunta vide order dated 03.12.2024. This post-suit rectification further vindicates the plaintiff’s position and demonstrates that his demand for rectification was well-founded. 22. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has misdirected itself in concluding that the plaintiff had failed to establish readiness and willingness. The finding suffers from a manifest perversity inasmuch as it completely ignores the overwhelming evidence of multiple payments made by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendants over a period of time. The defendants, having accepted such payments without demur, cannot now be permitted to turn around and contend that the plaintiff was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract. The absence of any rebuttal evidence from the defendants to disprove the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 plaintiff’s payments or to justify their own inaction further weakens their stand. 23. The principle that time is not of the essence in contracts relating to immovable property is well-settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chand Rani vs. Kamal Rani4, has held that mere delay in performance of a contract for sale of immovable property would not be fatal unless time is made of the essence by express stipulation or surrounding circumstances. 24. Applying these principles, it is evident that the defendants, by accepting successive payments after the date of agreement, and failing to issue any notice terminating or rescinding the agreement, have acquiesced to the continuation of the contract. The equity of the situation, therefore, clearly leans in favour of the plaintiff, who has not only performed substantial obligations under the agreement, but was also ready and willing to pay the 4 (1993) 1 SCC 519 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 balance and conclude the sale upon rectification of extent, an act that has now materialized in law. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out a case for specific performance, and the trial Court’s refusal to grant such relief is unsustainable in law and on facts. The discretion vested under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, necessarily has to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the trial Court on Issue No.1 that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract suffers from clear perversity, ignores material evidence on record, and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 formulated above are answered in the Affirmative. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Finding on point No.3: 27. This Court finds that the conclusion of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to pay proper or adequate court fee is factually and legally unsustainable. The suit in question was one for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property for a definite sale consideration. The plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit, specifically valued the relief sought in terms of the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 10.11.1996, and also disclosed the substantial payments already made to the defendants. The endorsements (sharas) on the reverse and inner pages of the agreement (marked at Ex.P-1) clearly indicate that a total sum of Rs.9,45,000/- had been paid by the plaintiff towards the sale consideration, a fact which is not denied by the original defendants in their written statement. 28. It is a settled principle that in suits for specific performance, the court fee is payable under Section 24(b) - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, on the amount of consideration stated in the agreement to sell, reduced by the amount already paid and acknowledged by the seller. The plaintiff has precisely adopted this method of valuation and paid court fee accordingly. The plaint clearly sets out the total sale consideration, the payments already made, and the balance amount payable, thus providing a transparent basis for valuation. The Trial Court, without demonstrating how this calculation was erroneous or contrary to the statute, has made a cryptic observation that the court fee paid was incorrect. 29. Moreover, the Trial Court has not indicated any particular provision of law that was violated by the plaintiff in computing the court fee, nor has it undertaken a comparative analysis of the actual court fee paid versus what it deemed to be payable. In the absence of any cogent reasoning or reference to legal provisions, such a finding cannot be sustained. It appears that the Trial - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Court failed to appreciate that where the sale consideration is admitted and substantial payment is evidenced by documentary proof, the plaintiff is entitled to deduct such amount and pay court fee only on the balance. 30. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the finding of the Trial Court regarding alleged deficiency in payment of court fee is misconceived and contrary to the legal position governing valuation of suits for specific performance. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside as being unsustainable both on facts and in law. Accordingly point No.3 formulated above is answered in the Affirmative. 31. Conclusions: a) This Court, upon a holistic reappraisal of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, particularly the contemporaneous endorsements (sharas) on the agreement to sell marked at Ex.P-1, finds that the plaintiff - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 has not only pleaded but also proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Trial Court's conclusion to the contrary is not merely an error of appreciation but amounts to a perverse finding, as it completely disregards the cumulative effect of the payments endorsed by the defendants themselves and their failure to rebut this documentary evidence. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness is held to be perverse and warrants interference. b) The Trial Court, having categorically held that time was not the essence of the contract, could not have declined specific performance merely on the ground of delay. The consistent conduct of the plaintiff in making substantial payments after the date of agreement, coupled with the defendants’ acceptance of such payments without any contemporaneous objection, clearly negates any theory of abandonment or breach. As held by the Hon’ble - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 Supreme Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani (supra) and Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Others (supra), the conduct of accepting further payments after the agreed period operates as a waiver of the stipulation of time, thereby disentitling the defendants from claiming termination or forfeiture. c) In the absence of any evidence of hardship or impossibility on the part of the defendants, and in the face of overwhelming equity leaning in favour of the plaintiff, the Trial Court erred in not exercising its discretion to decree specific performance. Accordingly, the second question is answered in the affirmative, and the refusal to grant specific performance is held to be legally unsustainable. d) The Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiff has paid insufficient or incorrect court fee is also found to be erroneous. The plaintiff had sought specific performance based on a defined sale consideration and had made - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 substantial payments towards the same, which were evidenced by the agreement and the subsequent sharas. The valuation made by the plaintiff was thus in accordance with law and proportionate to the relief sought. The Trial Court’s observation in this regard is unsupported by proper reasoning or legal basis. Hence, the finding regarding inadequacy of court fee is also set aside. 32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.352/2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal is set aside; (iii) Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.11.1996 is decreed; - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28861 RFA No. 843 of 2022 (iv) The defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.537, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon payment of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff; (v) In the event of default by the defendants, the plaintiff shall be entitled to initiate execution proceedings through Court for registration of the sale deed; (vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48