- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2021 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G. MANJULA W/O. LATE CHANDRU B AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 2. SRI. C. BHARATH S/O LATE CHANDRU B AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 3. SRI. C NANDHINI D/O LATE CHANDRU B AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, R/O SAMETHANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIKRAM H.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 AND: 1. SRI. C YELLAPPA S/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 2. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 3. SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 4. SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 6. SMT. SAKAMMA D/O. SRI. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.246/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 calling in question the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.246/2018 dated 28.09.2020 by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit filed for specific performance of contract is decreed in-part directing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 defendants to refund a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of agreement of sale till realization and refused the relief of specific performance. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract by making averments that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and the defendants have agreed to sell the property for total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) and out of which, received an advance amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and remaining balance would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed and accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 08.08.2013. But the defendants have not come forward to execute the registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file suit for specific performance of contract. 4. The defendants have remained absent before the Trial Court. Therefore, they have been placed exparte. 5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to 26. 6. The Trial Court has framed the following points for consideration as under: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance? OR In the alternative, whether they are entitled to refund of advance amount with interest as claimed? 3. What decree or order? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 7. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in-part by refusing the relief of specific performance but granted refund of earnest amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the crucial aspect of readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, it is further observed that the plaintiffs have not made any effort to get execution of sale deed within the reasonable time. Therefore, the Trial Court opined that grant of decree for specific performance of contract would cause undue advantage owing to the defendants by the plaintiffs. Therefore, refused to grant decree for specific performance of contract. But granted refund of earnest amount. 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the relief of specific performance, the appellants have filed the present appeal by rising various grounds. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants in consonance with the grounds urged in the appeal, submitted that the defendants have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 executed an agreement of sale for total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and out of which, the substantial amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was paid. Therefore, the plaintiffs have right to make claim over the property and the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration amount. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are the genuine purchasers of the land and agreement is also proved and the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Therefore, it is submitted that without considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rejected the relief of specific performance which is perverse in nature. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. 9. Notice issued to the respondents/defendants was served but they remained absent. 10. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, the following points arise for consideration: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Trial Court has committed any error in exercising the discretionary power while refusing the relief of specific performance as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 11. It is undisputed fact that the defendants are owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is asserting her right only through Ex.P1 - agreement of sale. Ex.P1 – agreement of sale is dated 08.08.2013 to the effect that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants that defendants are ready to part with the suit schedule property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and out of which, the plaintiffs have paid Rs.8,50,000/-. The schedule property is an agricultural land. The agreement of sale is dated 08.08.2013, but the suit is filed on 12.02.2018. Though - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 the plaintiff has issued legal notice as per Ex.P6 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed, but it is always not compulsory to pass decree in favour of plaintiff just because agreement of sale is proved. The Trial Court had found that the plaintiff has failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the part of contract as it is mandatory as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. There is no evidence placed by the plaintiff to prove that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Therefore, just because an agreement of sale is proved, and even if the grant of decree is lawful do so, still it is discretion of the Court whether to grant decree of specific performance or not. In this regard, I placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.N.Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. LRs vs. A. M. Krishnamurthy1. 12. The agreement of sale consideration is Rs.11,00,000/- for the suit schedule property, which was 1 AIR 2022 SC 3361 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 in the year 2013, even after lapse of 13 years, due to legal proceedings pending, compelling the defendants to sell out the land was that just Rs.11,00,000/- certainly, it would amount to unfair advantage over the defendants by the plaintiffs due to escalation of price of the property. Therefore, compelling the defendants to sell out the lands just Rs.11,00,000/- on the face of decree of specific performance is amounting to arbitrary and also causing hardship to the defendant. Therefore, Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is discretion to grant decree for specific performance and this is correctly exercised by the Trial Court by ordering to refund the earnest amount to the plaintiffs. But the rate of interest granted at the rate of 6% is found to be lesser side. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to interest at the higher rate of 9% p.a., on the earnest amount. To this extent, the appeal is liable to be allowed in-part. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in negative and point No.2 in partly affirmative. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31133 RFA No. 29 of 2021 ORDER 1. The Regular First Appeal is allowed-in-part. 2. The judgment and decree dated 28.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.246/2018 by the Trial Court rejecting the claim of decree for specific performance is confirmed. But, the rate of interest is modified by granting that said refund of earnest amount shall carry interest at the rate 9% p.a., from the date of agreement of sale till realization with proposed cost on Rs.8,50,000/-. 3. Draw decree accordingly. 4. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45