- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2014 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: T NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. AMMAYAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT ALLASANDRA VILLAGE, GKVK POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560 065. 2. SMT. N.KOMALA, W/O GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1715, 7TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K.POST, BENGALURU 560 065. 3. SMT.N.LAKSHMI, W/O MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.97, III WARD, NEAR GANESHA MATA, DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 125. 4. SMT.N.SHANTHA, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 W/O ANANDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.1593, ITTANGUR ROAD, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 125. 5. SMT.N.RENUKA, W/O RAGHUNATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.1919, 8TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, G.K.V.K.POST, BENGALURU - 560 065. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BULDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.2/7, SURURYA CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. N. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O VIJAYASRINIVASA REDDY @ KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, VINAKAYAKA NAGAR, NEAR SARASWATHI VIDYANIKETHAN SCHOOL, DOMMASANDRA, 10TH WARD, BENGALURU - 562 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. MANASA B. RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2014 PASSED IN EX NO.1367/2009 ON THE FILE FO THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the decree holder since deceased represented by his legal representatives aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 in Execution No.1367/2009 passed on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH9) Bengaluru (for brevity 'Executing Court'), by which, the Executing Court while partly allowing the petition had directed the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed in respect of remaining 3 sites bearing Site Nos.852, 1154 and 2092 in favour of the decree holder within a month from the date of the order. 2. Case of the appellants herein is; that decree holder/Narayana Reddy was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.91/3 measuring 26 guntas, Sy.No.92/3 measuring 1 acre - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 26 guntas, Sy.No.98/9 measuring 2 acre 28 guntas all situated at Allalsandra Village, Chikkbommsandra, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. That judgment debtor/respondent- society had entered into an agreement with the decree holder on 10.12.1994 agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as sale consideration in respect of the aforesaid land, which eventually led to judgment debtor/society filing a suit for specific performance in O.S No.4765/1998. During the pendency of said suit, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC came to be filed in terms of which judgment debtor/society agreed to allot and convey 25 sites of different dimensions in favour of the decree holder in lieu of the aforesaid land subject matter of the suit. That said suit accordingly was decreed on 14.12.1999. 3. That claiming performance of the terms of the compromise, the decree holder preferred execution petition seeking assistance of the Court in the form of direction to the judgment debtor/society to execute the deeds of sale in respect of the 25 sites being subject matter of the compromise in Execution No.1367/2009. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 4. That judgment debtor/society filed its objections denying the claim of the decree holder, contending that out of the 25 sites which were agreed to be allotted had already been conveyed in favour of the decree holder and in favour of nominees of the decree holder, which are as follows; i. Site No.1706 in favour of one Sri.Ramaiah son of Sanjeevappa in terms of deed of sale dated 23.04.2004 (executed by decree holder himself). ii. Decree Holder constructed a house on site No. 1715 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. iii. Decree Holder himself through his son-in-law and power of attorney holder Sri. D. M. Gopala Reddy sold Site No. 239/22 in favour of one Smt. S. Prabhavathi and Sri. P. Kishore Kumar in terms of deed of sale dated 30.01.2003. iv. The Decree Holder through the Society conveyed Site No. 239/21 in favour of his daughter Smt. Renuka in terms of deed of sale dated 16.10.2000. v. The Decree Holder through the Society conveyed Site No. 239/23 in favour of his daughter Smt. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 N.Nagarathna in terms of deed of sale dated 26.07.2001. vi. Decree Holder conveyed site No. 851 through the society in favour of one Smt.N. Komala under deed of sale dated 26.07.2001. vii. Decree Holder through his son-in-law Sri. D. M. Gopala Reddy conveyed Site No.239/22 and Site No. 1155 in terms of deed of sale dated 26.07.2001. 5. It is further contended that the decree holder had filed the execution petition by suppressing the aforesaid transactions. It is further contended that on 20.12.1999 decree holder had executed a power of attorney in favour of judgment debtor/society, authorizing it to sell and convey the property to its nominees. In furtherance whereof, site Nos.2089, 2092, 2105, 1793 and 1794 were conveyed in favour of the prospective purchasers in terms of the four deeds of sale dated 04.02.2000 and one deed of sale dated 07.02.2000. 6. As regard to the remaining sites, it is contended that the decree holder himself has negotiated with the prospective purchasers and has received the full sale consideration and had conveyed and transferred the remaining - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 sites to such persons. As such, upon his request and instruction, judgment debtor/respondent-society has executed deeds of sale in respect of certain sites, which are as under; Sl. No. Site Nos. Name of Purchasers Dates of deed of Sale 1 No. 239/13 Sri. N.Sathyanarana 16.10.2000, item No.9, marked as Ex.D20 2 No. 239/24 Sri.Nanjundappa 16.10.2000, item No.13, marked as Ex.D19 3 No. 239/25 Sri.Ananda 15.05.2000, item No.14, marked as Ex.D17 4 No. 239/26 Sri.A. K. Somanna 15.05.2000, Item No.15, marked as Ex.D16 5 No. 1167 Smt. Nanditha Madhav 29.03.2000, Item No.20, marked as Ex.D15 6 No.1704 Smt. L.Lakshmikanthamma (to which son-in-law of the decree holder is attesting witness). 26.07.2001, Item No.1, marked as Ex.D18 7 No.1705 Sri.C.S. Shivashankarappa 16.10.2000, Item No.2, marked as Ex.D13 8 No.1707 Sri. A. V. Kishore Kumar 12.10.2000, Item No.4, marked as Ex.D14 9 No. 1708 Sri.A.K. Mani, 12.9.2000, Item No.5, marked as Ex.D11 10 No. 1738 Sri. N. Ravindra Nath 26.07.2001, Item No.17, marked as Ex.D12 Thus, out of 25 sites, 23 sites have been conveyed either in the name of the decree holder or his family members or in favour - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 of his nominees, warranting no further performance of the terms of the compromise by the judgment debtor/Society. 7. A rejoinder to the said statement of objection is filed by the decree holder/ Narayana Reddy. Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the said rejoinder reads as under; "4. It is submitted that the decree holder's daughter Smt Ranuka filed a suit for partition in O.S.4149/1998 before the Hon'ble city civil judge, Bangalore city against the decree holder and his family members, the said suit also compromised on 15.03.2001, as per the compromise the 25 sites which were allotted to the decree holder from the judgement debtor, should be allotted to the family members of the decree holder, hence in view of the compromise the decree holder as to allot share to his family members for which with a bonafied reason and for his misery he has sold two sites in favour of the bonafied purchaser and also allot few sites to his family members with his consent through the judgement debtor executed necessary documents in favour of his family members which are shown as follows: a) Site No 1706, sale deed dated 23/4/2004 executed by decree holder in favour of Sri. Ramaiah. b) Site No 850, sale deed dated 26/07/2001 executed by judgement debtor in favour of Smt. Lakshmi, D/o Narayanna Reddy. c) Site No 851, sale deed dated 26/7/2001 executed by judgement debtor in favour of Smt. Komala, D/o Narayanna Reddy. d) Site No 239/21, sale deed dated 14/12/2000 executed by judgement debtor in favour of Smt. Renuka, D/o Narayanna Reddy. e) Site No 239/23, sale deed dated 26/07/2001 executed by judgement debtor in favour of Smt. Nagaratna, D/o Narayanna Reddy. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 f) Site No 1715, gift deed dated 11/05/2009 executed by decree holder in favour of Smt. Komala, D/o Narayanna Reddy. Even though for the above 6 sites, the judgement debtor did not issue possession certificate in favour of neither decree holder nor site holders. 5. It is submitted that subsequent to compromise, the judgement debtor whenever sold sites formed in the land of decree holder, the judgement debtor used to call the decree holder and obtained his signature as a witness on the sale deed, as the decree holder is a layman and gullible person and he does not know to write or read any language, except to sign in Kannada, and as such taking undue advantage of his innocence the judgement debtor with a guilty and fraudulent manner, they have obtained his signature, only for his bonafied belief on the judgement debtor's officials, the decree holder signed as a witness, now taking undue advantage of his signature on the alleged sale deeds in respect of sites which are allotted to him, but now with a malafide intension the judgement debtor to save their sin came up with a false plea alleging that the decree holder gave consent or requested the judgement debtor to alienate those sites on his behalf, are all absolutely false and as such the judgement debtor ought to have convey the 19 sites in favour of decree holder in accordance with law. 6. It is submitted that except the above 6 sites, and remaining sites sale transactions as stated in the objection statement are not binding on the decree holder and only on perusal of the objection statement filed by the judgement debtor on 29/01/2011 the decree holder came to know the alleged sale transaction between the judgement debtor-and purchaser, hence if any sale deed or encumbrance over the 19 sites is made by the judgement debtor are all not binding on the decree holder and are void-ab-initio." 8. On behalf of the decree holder, his son-in-law the GPA holder/Sri. D.M.Gopala Reddy has examined himself as PW1 and has produced 16 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P16. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 On behalf of judgment debtor/society its President has examined himself as DW.1 and has produced 21 documents marked as Exs.D1 to 21. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the Execution Court on 07.03.2014 passed the following order; "Petition file under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC is allowed in part and Judgment Debtor is directed to execute sale deeds in respect of remaining three sites bearing No. 852, 1154 and 2092 in favour of decree holder if those are not CA sites and deliver the possession of those sites to the decree holder within a month from date of this order." 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ decree holder after arguing the matter at length submits that the appellants/decree holder at this juncture would restrict his claim only in respect of five sites namely; (i) Site No.2089 (ii)Site No.2092 (iii) Site No.2105 (iv) Site No. 1793 (v)Site No.1794. Thus, he submits that the appellants/decree holder would not seek any relief as against the remaining sites. He further submits that apart from the aforesaid five sites, there are admittedly two sites which have not been conveyed, namely, Site Nos. 852 and 1154 (Item No.8 and 18 to the compromise petition). - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/decree holder as well as the respondent that there was an error in the said order. Therefore, upon an application made, the same was corrected by order dated 09.04.2014 deleting Site No.2092 and restricting the said order only to remaining two sites. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/ decree holder taking this Court extensively through the records and also referring to the list of dates and synopsis filed by him primarily contended; (a) that the five sites referred to above, which have been sold by the judgment debtor/respondent-society purportedly on the basis of the power of attorney dated 20.12.1999 produced at Ex.D1 are not binding on the decree holder, inasmuch as, the deeds of sale in respect to the said five sites do not refer to the execution of such power of attorney. (b) That there is no details either in the sale deed or in the evidence provided by the judgment debtor/respondent- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 Society regarding payment of sale consideration in respect to said five sites to decree holder/ Narayana Reddy. There are over writing, deletion, interpolation in the said deeds of sale. (c) Though decree holder has been shown as a consenting witness, he has been merely used as a witness in the said deeds of sale, which by itself could not be a factor to deny his legitimate entitlement to the sites or the sale consideration. (d) That the said deeds of sale are neither in consonance with the terms of the compromise nor of the general power of attorney. As such, the judgment debtor/respondent- society cannot claim to have conveyed valid right, title, interest in favour of the purchasers thereunder. In any event, the said deeds of sale would not bind the appellants/decree holder. Therefore, he submits that apart from the two sites which by virtue of the order passed through the Execution Court, the judgment debtor/respondent-society be directed to execute the sale deeds in respect to the aforesaid deeds of sale which - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 have been conveyed pursuant to the alleged power of attorney, is his submission. 13. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-society/judgment debtor, at the outset submits; (a) that appellants/decree holder has not approached the Court with clean hands. The whole proceedings initiated by him suffers from suppression of material facts and ulterior intents. (b) He submits that Execution Petition initially is filed in respect of entire 25 sites without disclosing the transactions which admittedly have been carried on by or at the instance of the decree holder, which have been deliberately suppressed. (c) He submits the very rejoinder filed by the decree holder to the objection filed by the Judgment debtor/respondent-society is replete with falsehood and contradictions, in that he admits conveyance in respect to six sites and claims only 19 sites. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 (d) He submits that Narayana Reddy who alleges fraud, coercion, misrepresentation has not entered the witness box. He has neither denied the signature on the power of attorney at Ex.D1 nor on the deeds of sale. Having taken the benefit of the transactions, he cannot retract and distance himself from the transactions. His claim suffers from vices of acquiescence and estoppel. His son-in-law, who has entered the witness box as PW1, at para 2 and 3 of his cross-examination, categorically admitted to the execution of the power of attorney at Ex.D1, also, the signatures of decree holder found on the deeds of sale pertaining to the aforesaid 5 deeds of sale at Exs.D2 to D5. There has been no challenge to the said deeds of sale despite decree holder being completely aware of the same having been come into existence. Nothing prevented him from raising dispute with regard to said conveyance. (e) He also refers to sale deed dated 30.01.2003 at Ex.P14 and reference to recitals of the said document indicate the decree holder/Narayana Reddy was in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 complete know-how of the transactions that has transpired between the society and various prospective purchasers, in which he himself in a deed of sale dated 30.01.2003 at Ex.P14 has categorically declared that under the terms of the compromise he was empowered to deal only with 10 sites out of 25 sites and he had given up his right over the remaining sites. Though the language employed would indicate due to inadvertence 'as rest of the land', he submits the same has to be read only to mean 'the sites'. Read holistically, he submits all the sites which were to be allotted in favour of the decree holder have been dealt with, conveyed in the manner known to law to the complete knowledge of the decree holder which fact has been taken note of by the Executing Court resulting in the impugned order warranting no interference. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. (f) He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India and Another vs. MJ James reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 Referring to paragraphs 39 and 40 of the said judgment, he submits the claim of the petitioner suffers from acquiescence, delay and laches as well as estoppel. 14. Heard. Perused the records. 15. Points that arise for consideration are: "(i) Whether the appellants/decree holder is entitled for execution of sale deeds in respect of Site Nos.2089, 2092, 2105, 1793 and 1794 as claimed in the rejoinder? (ii) Whether the Executing Court was justified in partly allowing the petition directing the Judgment debtor to execute deeds of sale only in respect of two sites in favour of decree holder?" 16. There is no dispute of the fact that a compromise decree as noted above had been entered into between the decree holder/appellants and the judgment debtor/respondent- Society. There is also no dispute at least now, that about 18 sites out of 25 sites have been conveyed or sold either directly or at the instance/ instruction of the decree holder in favour of his family members as well as various prospective purchasers. There is also no dispute of the fact that as per the sale deed dated 30.01.2003, produced at Ex.P14 and two other conveyance of that nature, decree holder himself through his - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 power of attorney holder, the son-in-law, the power of attorney holder has conveyed the property claiming himself to be the owner of those sites. These transactions have taken place between the years 2000 and 2009. Execution Petition has been filed on 02.07.2009, that is, just two months subsequent to the last date of the transaction, namely, deed of sale dated 11.05.2009 executed by decree holder himself in favour of his daughter Smt.Komala. 17. Ex.D1 is the power of attorney, execution of which is not disputed. Reference in this regard is made to the deposition of PW.1 son-in-law found at para 2 of his deposition which reads as under; "I can identify the signature of the decree holder Narayna Reddy. Now I see a document shown to me. It bears the signature of Narayana Reddy. The said document is general power of attorney, executed by Narayana Reddy in respect of 5 sites in favour of judgment debtor/society. It is marked at Ex.D1. It is false to suggest that the decree holder has done the transaction and have sold the site in favour of Nagaraj i. Ex.P site bearing No.1793 and has put the signature as witness to the said sale deed. It is false to suggest that the said decree holder by virtue of the said power of attorney did the transactions in respect of the sites so mentioned in the said power of attorney and has put his signature as a witness to all the sale deeds, in respect of site Nos. 1793, 1794, 2089 and 2105. It is false to suggest that though I knew about the signing of the decree holder, an all the aforesaid sale deed in respect of the sites mentioned above but even then I am speaking falsehood. It is false to suggest that by virtue of the power - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 of attorney as per Ex.D1 and at the instance of decree holder only the judgment debtor has sold the aforesaid 5 sites and other sites. It is false to suggest that all the sale transactions of the sites were done by the judgment debtor/ society at the instance of decree holder only and the said judgment debtor is only the signatory to the sale deed at the instance of decree holder. It is false to suggest that whatever the sale consideration so mentioned in the sale deeds are not at all being received by the judgment debtor and the entire consideration amount of selling the said sites have been received by decree holder only. It is true to suggest that all the sites so mentioned in the execution petition are not at all in possession of the judgment debtor society. It is false to suggest that all the said sites are in possession of the respective purchasers and I know about it". 18. The aforesaid five sites are subject matter of the deeds of conveyance detailed as under: (i) Site No.2089 (subject matter of sale deed dated 04.02.2000 executed by respondent/ society in favour of one Smt. T.Usharani as per Ex.D2. (Narayana Reddy is witness to the document) (ii)Site No.2092 (subject matter of sale deed dated 07.02.2000 executed by the Society in favour of Sri.N. Manjunath. (not marked) (iii) Site No.2105 (subject matter of sale deed dated 4.2.2000 executed by the society in favour of Sri.C.Narayana Raju as per Ex.D3 (Narayana Reddy is witness to the document) (iv) Site No. 1793 (subject matter of sale deed dated 4.2.2000 executed by the society in favour of Sri M Nagaraj as per Ex.D5. (Narayana Reddy is witness to the document) - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 (v)Site No.1794 (subject matter of sale deed dated 4.2.2000 executed by the society in favour of Sri.H.M. Mallikarjun Swamy as per Ex.D4. (Narayana Reddy is witness to the document) 19. There is also no dispute with regard to decree holder/Narayana Reddy affixing his signature as a witness to the aforesaid five deeds of sale. Though it is claimed that certain signature of Narayana Reddy was obtained on blank papers and misused by the judgment debtor/respondent society, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the judgment debtor/respondent-Society, Narayana Reddy who alleges misuse, misrepresentation has not entered the witness box. To the said extent, evidence of PW1 cannot be relied upon as he is incompetent to depose with regard to the mental status of the witness. Fraud, misrepresentation, coercion can only be spoken by the person who has exerted or who has suffered, cannot be substituted by a witness like a son-in-law of the decree holder/appellant in this instant case. No justification is afforded for non-examination of the said witness. 20. As already noted above, the witness who has been examined does not dispute the signature of decree - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 holder/Narayana Reddy found either on the power of attorney or on the deeds of sale. Evidence led in by the parties read in isolation would probably indicate and give rise to impression as sought to be made out by the appellant/decree holder that the deeds of sale were executed without his knowledge and concurrence. On the other hand, evidence read in holistic manner, taking into consideration the transactions which have taken place in respect of all the 19 sites would indicate that even without any direct conveyance by the judgment debtor/respondent-society in favour of the decree holder/Narayana Reddy, rights have been created in favour of the prospective purchasers and also in favour of the family members of the decree holder/ Narayana Reddy. The feeble contention therefore, as urged that though decree holder/ Narayana Reddy is shown as a witness, the said document is not binding on him cannot be countenanced under the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case. In any event, non- mentioning of decree holder/Narayana Reddy as a vendor cannot be a ground, inasmuch as, admittedly decree holder/ Narayana Reddy is not the owner of the said sites. Compromise decree if any was merely a promise made by the judgment - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 debtor/respondent-society to convey the sites in his name, which is why the Execution Petition No.1367/2009 was filed, that too, after conveyance of 18 sites to different persons, even before conveyance of title in favour of decree holder/Narayana Reddy. 21. Another aspect of the matter to be considered is that as rightly pointed by learned counsel for the judgment debtor/respondent-society, appellant/decree holder cannot claim to have come to the Court with clean hands, suppression of the facts is writ large. He having undoubtedly derived the benefits of 18 sites under various transactions referred to above, even before filing of the execution proceedings and its conclusion, cannot claim to have been deprived of his legitimate entitlement as sought to be canvassed. 22. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India (supra) at paragraphs 39, 40 has held as under; "39. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarity distinction between acquiescence and "delay and laches" Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 He cannot afterwards completed, which conduct reflect his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, each consent, concurrence, or acceptance, which demotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon en equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in interring such an intention, Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands try and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence". "40. Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. 31 Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation". which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case. Points raised above are answered accordingly. 23. The Executing Court on appreciation of the evidence in the considered view of this Court has come to just conclusion - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5589 RFA No. 593 of 2014 directing the judgment debtor/respondent-Society to execute and register the deeds of sale, if any, in respect of two sites namely, site Nos.852 and 1154. Appeal therefore fails, same is dismissed accordingly. 24. However, notwithstanding the dismissal of appeal, since the appellants/decree holder claims that they have not been paid the sale consideration in respect of five sale deeds executed pursuant of the power of attorney-Ex.D1, they are at liberty to seek relief to the extent of the sale consideration if so advised and permissible. 25. The judgment debtor/respondent-Society shall endeavor to execute the sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid two sites bearing Site numbers 852 and 1154 within an outer limit of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if there are no other legal impediments such as pendency of any legal proceedings. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4