- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1812 OF 2018 (SP) BETWEEN: MRS. PAVITHRAMMA W/O. N. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/O. NO. 141/13/1-3, 3RD BLOCK EAST, 13TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. INDIRA SWAMY W/O. DR. RAVINDRANATH KAMBAM PATI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. NO. 33, BRADY LANE, BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICHIGAN 48304, USA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4408/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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) The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2018 passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.4408/2015. 2. The plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 08.07.2018. The alternate prayer made by the defendant in suit was for refund of earnest money of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The defendant is the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 absolute owner of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant decided to sell the suit property in the year 2011. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was that of mother and daughter; now the plaintiff is no more. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s mother, defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.80 Lakhs on 18.07.2011 and an oral agreement was made between the parties in presence of another daughter of the defendant. 3. The written statement was filed by the mother who disputed the assertion in the plaint and denied that any oral agreement was made between the parties for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. It was also stated that the defendant never asked the plaintiff to make the payment of Rs.35,00,000/-, it was the plaintiff who transferred the said amount on her own without any request made by the defendant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves the defendant has agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs.80,00,000/- under oral agreement dated 08.07.2011? (ii) Whether plaintiff further proves that under the oral agreement dated 08.07.2011, plaintiff has a paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the defendant as part consideration? (iii) Whether plaintiff further proves that she is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (iv) Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract? (v) What Order? 5. The plaintiff could not prove the existence of the oral agreement inasmuch as the witness who was said to be present during the time of oral agreement arrived at between the parties was not examined, as the witness had passed away. The trial Court having considered the oral - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit and however, directed the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- received in the bank account with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of transfer till the date of payment. The plaintiff was also directed to pay damages of Rs.5 Lakhs to her mother. 6. Against the impugned judgment and order, the mother who is now no more filed the appeal in No.1921/2018, which came to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal submits that the defendant never denied the receipt of Rs.35,00,000/-. In fact, she admitted the said receipt, and therefore, the onus was on her to prove that the said amount was not received in pursuance to the oral agreement. The submission is that when the plaintiff has asserted that the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was transferred on 19.06.2012 in pursuance to the oral agreement of sale dated 08.07.2011, the court should - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 have drawn the assumption that the said transfer was in pursuance to the agreement of sale. 8. The plaintiff who examined herself as PW1 supported the stand taken in the plaint. However, in cross- examination, the plaintiff stated that prior to 19.07.2012, defendant had transferred a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- to the bank account of the plaintiff out of her love and affection towards the plaintiff. The said transfer would get proved by Ex.D1 i.e., the passbook and the relevant entry pertaining to transfer of Rs.65,00,000/- from the bank account of the defendant to the bank account of the plaintiff which was admitted. PW1, the plaintiff further admitted that she had transferred Rs.35,00,000/- to the bank account of the defendant one year after the alleged oral agreement dated 08.07.2011 and after a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- was received by the plaintiff in her bank account from the defendant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 9. Considering the said admissions made by the plaintiff and the evidence of the defendant, the trial Court did not believe the oral agreement and also that the plaintiff had transferred Rs.35,00,000/- to bank account of the defendant in pursuance to the alleged oral agreement of sale and therefore, dismissed the suit. 10. We have also examined the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff had admitted that the defendant had transferred Rs.65,00,000/- to the bank account of the plaintiff prior to 19.06.2000. A sum of Rs.35,00,000/- was transferred by the plaintiff to the bank account of the defendant only on 19.06.2012 i.e., after almost a year from the date of the alleged oral agreement dated 08.07.2011. We are therefore, of the view that the said transfer of Rs.35,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the bank account of the defendant was not in pursuance of the alleged oral agreement and the trial Court has rightly held so. When the agreement of sale is not proved, there is no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48100-DB RFA No. 1812 of 2018 question of awarding damages. We therefore find no merit in this appeal. 11. Appeal is hereby dismissed. All pending I.As stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11