Display PDF

Judgment 1 O.S. No.
6887/2021
KABC010280142021
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY

CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40),
BENGALURU CITY.
PRESENT: K. Vidya B.Sc., M.A., LL.M.,

XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
O.S.No.6887/2021
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2024
BETWEEN:
Plaintiff:
Sri. A.D Narayana Reddy,

S/o late Subramani Reddy,
Judgment 2 O.S. No. 6887/2021
Aged about 57 years,

R/at Flat No.403,
No.18, Nandi Vishwas Apartment,
Subramanyapura Main Road,
Chikkallasandra,
Bengaluru – 560 061 .
(By Sri. T.N.Viswanatha., Advocate)
Defendant :
Sri. V. Sanjeeva Reddy,
S/o late Govinda Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.964, 2nd Cross Road,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru – 560 022.
(Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of 17/12/2021

Suit
Nature of Suit Seeking relief of Specific
Performance
Date of Commencement 01/07/2023

of Recording of evidence
Date of which Judgment 28/10/2024

was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s

02 10 11
(K.VIDYA)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT
The instant suit is filed by Plaintiff
beseeching reliefs infra:-

 Firstly, by directing Defendant to
execute and register the Sale
Deed in favour of Plaintiff in
respect of the Suit Schedule
Property by receiving the balance
sale consideration of
₹.3,00,000/- .
 Secondly, if the Defendant fails
to execute the of Plaintiff with
respect to the suit schedule
property through direct him to
execute through due process of
law.
 Thirdly, to grant permanent
injunction restraining the
Defendant, their agents, servants
or anybody claiming under him
from alienating / encumbering
the schedule property .
 Lastly, to mould such other
reliefs this court deems fit in
facts and circumstances of case.
2. SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY
All that Piece and parcel of the property
bearing BDA No. 674, Municipal

Corporation No.674 / 32, katha No.32
PID No.4-110-32 situated at 5th main
road, Gokul 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, BBMP
Ward No.4, Bengaluru in all measuring
2,426 Sq. ft. and bounded on :
East By:- Property No.674/A

West By:- Road
South by:- Property No.673
North by:- Property No.675
herein after referred to as suit schedule
property for sake of brevity.

3. The Factual Matrix circumventing Plaint

averments leading to cause of action is as
follows:-
1.That, the Defendant is the absolute
owner and in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property which he had acquired
from his erstwhile owner Sri.
Muthappa, by virtue of Sale Deed
dated 18/08/2005.
2.That, the Defendant had
approached the Plaintiff and had
offered to sell same whilst exercising
his right of ownership had executed

Agreement of Sale in favour of
Plaintiff to meet out his family and
legal necessities on 19th November
2018 on stamp paper and the
Plaintiff has agreed to purchase the
same for total sale consideration of
₹.2,24,00,000/- and in furtherance
to this as agreed upon, the Plaintiff
has paid advance consideration of
₹.25,00,000/- by way of cheque
bearing No.186625 dated
19/11/2018 drawn on Axis Bank
Ltd., Bananshankari Branch,
Bengaluru and Defendant agreed to

receive the balance of sale
consideration amount of
₹.1,99,00,000/- within three
months from the date of agreement
and in furtherance to this Defendant
has also agreed to do away with all
necessary papers in proof of title
and possession of the same within
stipulated period and akin to the
terms, the said sale was to be
competed within three months.
That, in furtherance the Defendant
has received a sum of
₹.1,53,87,500/- from the Plaintiff

towards remaining part of sale
consideration amount on different
dates by executing shara on the Sale
Agreement dated 19/11/2018. That
Defendant in all received
₹.1,78,87,500/- from the Plaintiff
towards the Sale consideration
amount and further the Defendant
has agreed to receive the balance
sale consideration amount of
₹.45,12,500/- from the Plaintiff and
to execute Sale deed in favour of
Plaintiff.
3.That, on account of pandemic
outbreak Covid-19 all over
Country and State there was lock
down imposed by benign Central
Government as a result, the sale
transactions came to be mutually
agreed postponed till the date of
lifting of lock down. That, the
complete lock down was lifted on
22/07/2020 and thereafter akin
to the terms and conditions
assailed in said Agreement of Sale
the Defendant for the reasons

best known to had kept on
postponing to perform his part of
contract, wherein the Plaintiff
with all earnestness had urged
Defendant to perform his part of
contract by registering the Suit
Schedule Property before the
Sub-registrar and deliver vacant
possession of same, but to the
utter shock and dismay of
Plaintiff the Defendant gave cold
shoulders to the prayer of
Plaintiff, wherein which the

Plaintiff is ever ready and willing
to perform his part of contract
and with the great aspiration had
paid substantial consideration
towards as token of advance with
all zealousness, on contra the
Defendant had turned down the
request of Plaintiff by exhibiting
hostile attitude.
4.That, during the last week of August
2020 Panchayath was convened
between the Plaintiff and Defendant,
at the intervention of well-wishers

the Plaintiff expressed to pay the
balance sale consideration amount
and take necessary conveyance deed
in his favour. In the said
Panchayath, the Defendant went
against the advice of the well-
wishers and left the panchayath by
refusing to honour the agreed
contractual terms under the
Agreement of Sale dated
19/11/2018.
5.That the Plaintiff had beseeched
and beckoned Defendant to execute

and register the Sale Deed in tunes
of Agreement of Sale for which the
Defendant had given deaf ears,
wherein which the Plaintiff in order
to demonstrate his readiness and
willingness to perform his part of
contract had caused legal notice as
against Defendant on 14/09/2020
calling upon Defendant for
execution of Sale Deed in tunes of
Agreement of Sale, which was not
returned but misplaced while
posting in the office. That, to the

utter shock and dismay the
Defendant had neither replied nor
complied with the terms of the
Agreement of Sale and further failed
to register the Sale Deed in favour of
Plaintiff by furnishing all the
relevant and vital documents, when
prevailing circumstances stood so,
Defendant want to evade execution
of the sale deed in favour of the
Plaintiff, with an intention to make
wrongful gain.
6.That, Defendant overtly and openly
started proclaiming in the vicinity of
schedule property during the first
week of November 2021 to the effect
that he would sell the schedule
property to the third parties with
fraudulent intention to cause loss
and deprive the Plaintiff of his legal
rights of purchase under the said
executory contract of sale and
trying to usurp the earnest
consideration paid by Plaintiff.
Hence finding no other alternative

Plaintiff was constrained to file
instant suit seeking redress.
4. That, pursuant to issuance of suit
summons through coercive mode of
service, Defendant did not grace to
knock the doors of court, in light of
which having due regards he was
placed ex-parte by Learned Predecessor
in Office.
5. That, in order to bring home the bone of
contention, the Plaintiff had got
examined perse as PW.1 and in
addition to his oral evidence to

substantiate the stand had examined
two witnesses at PW.2 and PW.3
respectively who had deposed in
consonance with Plaint Averments, in
furtherance to oral evidence, during
ocular evidence got exhibited
documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13
respectively and closed his evidence.
6. That, after perusal of oral and
documentary evidence coupled with the
arguments addressed by Learned
Counsel on Plaintiff side Sri.T.N.V. the

points which arise for consideration is
as follows:-
:POINTS:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves
that the Defendant had
executed a Sale Agreement on
19/11/2018 by receiving
substantial earnest
consideration of
₹.1,78,87,500/- from Plaintiff
by way of cheque and cash on
different dates?
2.If so,Whether the Plaintiff
further proves that he was
ever ready and willing to
perform his part of contract?
3.Whether the Plaintiff is
entitled for the reliefs sought
in prayer column of Plaint?
4.If so,what Order or Decree?
7. That, on careful perusal of oral and
documentary evidence and after giving
anxious consideration to the arguments

addressed the Learned Counsel for Plaintiff,
this court answer the points as follows :-
Point No.1 :– In the Affirmative.

Point No.2 :– In the Affirmative.
Point No.3: – In the Affirmative.
(in light of discussions
made on Point No.1 & 2)
Point No.4 – As per final order for

following :-
:R E A S O N S:
8. Point No. 1 to 3:- As the aforementioned
points coined by this court are intricated,
wherein findings given on one point has
great bearing with another, they are taken

together for consideration in order to avoid
repetition of facts and appreciation of
evidence in present fora.
9. It is palpable from records that, the Plaintiff
has filed the instant suit seeking relief of
specific performance of contract by
directing the Defendant to execute the sale
deed in favour of the Plaintiff with respect
to the schedule property, failing which
directing the Defendant to execute the Sale
Deed due process.

10.It is the definite stand of Plaintiff that he
had entered into an Agreement of Sale with
the Defendant on 19/11/2018 with respect
to the suit schedule property, wherein total
sale consideration amount of
₹.2,24,00,000/- was fixed and in
furtherance to this akin to terms and
conditions the Defendant was in receipt of
₹.1,78,87,500/- towards earnest sale
consideration by way of cheque and cash,
which was duly acknowledged by the
Defendant on different dates and in
furtherance to this he had agreed to get of

Suit Schedule Property within three
months of execution of Agreement of Sale
by procuring all vital documents required
for execution of Sale Deed in favour of the
Plaintiff, and when the Defendant had
showed hostile approach in performing his
part of contract as the Plaintiff was ever
ready and willing to perform his part of
contract was constrained to cause Legal
notices on 14/09/2020 calling upon
Defendant for execution of Sale Deed in
tunes of Agreement but it was futile
exercise.
11.That, the Plaintiff in order to prove the
executory contract which he claims to have
transpired with Defendant had got
examined himself as PW.1 and two other
witnesses as PW.2 & PW.3 deposed in
consonance with the Plaint averments and
candidly explicated and regurgitated the
factum of execution of Agreement of Sale
after receiving earnest sale consideration
amount of ₹.1,78,87,500/- by the
Defendant and thereafter they had given go
bye to the promise and in order to fortify
his stand got exhibited documents at Ex.P1

to P13 during ocular evidence, wherein
Ex.P1 constitutes original Agreement of
Sale dated 19/11/2015 executed by
Defendant V.Sanjeeva Reddy in favour of
Plaintiff on 19/11/2018, wherein the
signature of PW-2 found in Ex.P1 is
marked as Ex.P1(a) to P1(c), Ex.P1(d)
comprise signature of PW.3. Ex.P.2
comprise statement of bank account of
Narayana Reddy, Ex.P3 comprise certified
copy of sale deed dated 20/12/2021 which
is supplied by Learned Counsel for Plaintiff
for better and profitable understanding

which reveals the flow of title which came
to be executed by the original landlord
Sri.Muttappa in favour of the erstwhile
owner of Plaintiff so as the Defendant
herein, Ex.P4 certified copy of Sale Deed
dated 16/08/2005 executed by BDA in
favour of Sri.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex.P5
comprise Khatha extract, Ex.P6 comprise
tax paid receipt issued by BBMP, Ex.P7
comprise Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P8 &
P9 comprises of two vakalaths filed by the
Senior of PW.2 and Ex.P10 comprise death
certificate of Rama Murthy Reddy A.M.,

Ex.P11 comprise Bank Statement
maintained by the Axis Bank in respect of
Plaintiff OD against property scheme,
Ex.P12 comprise Bank Statement
maintained by the Karnataka Bank in
respect of Plaintiff OD against property
scheme, Ex.P13 comprise letter dated
08/07/2024 issued by Karnataka Bank in
respect of the OD account maintained by
Plaintiff.
12.That, Before harping upon the very crux of
the case, it is incumbent upon the court to
highlight regarding the legal position in law

that, when the Plaintiff has sought of relief
of Specific performance of contract as
against Defendant, the burden of proof
rests on him and has to bring home his
case with cogent materials to the
satisfaction of court which should inspire
confidence.
13.At the cost of repetition, it is vital to state
that, Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for
specific performance of the contract by way
of direction, directing the Defendant to
perform his part of contract by executing
which, through the Court by executing

regular Sale Deed and in order to bring
home the said fact during trial PW.1 has
candidly assailed the factum of execution of
purported Ex.P1 Agreement of sale dated
19/11/2018 and in furtherance to this a
Careful reading of Ex.P1 reveals that, the
Defendant had canvassed that he was
intending to sell the suit schedule property
for his family and legal necessities for
which this Plaintiff had agreed to purchase
the same and thereby had entered into
Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale wherein
Defendant had agreed to submit all

relevant vital records and further proceed
to execute sale deed by performing his part
of contract.
14.That, the Learned Counsel representing the
Plaintiff Sri. T.N.V., during tenure of
arguments impressed upon this court that
acting in tunes with the Defendant he had
paid substantial earnest consideration
towards said executory contract and
further as agreed upon by Defendant it
was incumbent upon them to procure all
vital documents and get property under lis
in the name of Plaintiff be that as it may

there was outbreak of Pandemic Covid -19
on account of which force majure came as
as stumble block, keeping in mind the
Lockout declared by benign State, the
Plaintiff had awaited for reasonable period
as he had paid substantial earnest
consideration with true aspiration of
owning land, but to the utter dismay and
misfortune of Plaintiff, the Defendant for
the reasons best known had
procrastinated, hence the Plaintiff waiting
for the stipulated period had caused legal
notice on 14/09/2020 (akin to the version

that said notice came to be misplaced as
depicted in Plaint averments) and had also
produced Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 Bank Statement
revealing the acknowledgment of amount
by Defendant, and even then when
Defendant had not resorted to file the
instant suit well within time and in second
limb of arguments urged that the despite
repeated oral requests and demand
Defendant failed to complete registration
formalities and had given go bye to their
promise which is palpable from the
attending circumstances.
15.At this juncture, on the backdrop of
deliberations made in superior paragraphs
it becomes germane that the execution of
Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale by Defendant has
remained unchallenged and undisputed,
for the reasons that the Defendant has not
opted to appear before the court to contest
the matter which is not out of place to
opine the ulterior motives of Defendant in
giving go bye to promise and thereby it can
be inferred that Defendant is guilty of
performing their part of contract.

16.It is also further case of Plaintiff that he
was ever ready and willing to perform his
part of contract and in furtherance to
execution of Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale by
Defendant he had paid substantial amount
of ₹.1,78,87,500/- wherein which the
factum of payment was very well
acknowledged by Defendant as earnest
consideration is considered the said bone
of contention gets reinforced as the
Defendant who had executed Ex.P1
Agreement of Sale was in receipt of earnest
consideration amount which is

reverberated in Page No.5 of Ex.P1
Agreement of Sale which gets attached with
legal sanctity wherein which on contra the
Defendant for the reasons known to him
had failed to perform their part of contract,
which fact has remained unequivocal and
undisputed as the Defendant has failed to
contest the suit by marking attendance,
and thus court can safely infer that the
Plaintiff has successfully discharged the
burden cast on him.
17.That, in light of foregoing observations it is
opined that the preponderance of

probabilities in respect to the execution of
the Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale by the
Defendant oscillates in favour of the
Plaintiff, hence having due regards to facts
and circumstances of case Point No.1 to 3
are answered in the affirmative. At this
juncture it becomes palpable that Ex.P1
Agreement of Sale in not duly registered
and mere executed plainly of e-stamp paper
with stamp duty of ₹.500/- and when
compared the the earnest consideration, it
was incumbent to pay the stamp duty akin
to the provisions contemplated under

Karnataka Stamps Act (latest Amendment
of 2024 effected to said Act) on the said
backdrop it becomes impeccable to state on
the backdrop of well settled proposition
based on fiscal statute that no man can be
pervaded to unjustly enriched by leaving
Scotfree without payment of duty and
penalty, which would lead and land benign
State to hoodlums accordingly whilst
answering Point No.1 to 3 in favour of
Plaintiff, he is hereby directed to pay duty
and penalty on Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale.

18.Point No.4:- For the reasons assigned on
point No.1 to 3 and on the backdrop of
discussions arraigned therein this court
proceeds to pass following:-
:ORDER:
The suit filed by the
Plaintiff seeking relief of
Specific Performance as
against Defendant is decreed
with costs in following terms:-
Consequently, the Defendant
is hereby directed to execute
registered Sale Deed in favour

of Plaintiff akin to the terms
and conditions assailed in
Agreement of Sale dated
19/11/2018 within three
months from this date failing
which, the Plaintiff is at
liberty to get executed the
same through due process of
law.
That, office is hereby
directed to impound Ex.P1
Agreement of Sale Dated
19/11/2018 towards payment

of Duty and Penalty akin to the
provisions contemplated under
Stamp Act.
Office to Draw decree
accordingly.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer grade III
over computer system, the computer script
generated by her is corrected, rectified and
revised by me, and then pronounced in open
court on this the 28th day of October 2024)
(K.VIDYA)
XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURES
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON

BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 Sri. A.D. Narayana Reddy
PW.2 Sri. B. Sapthagirisha
PW.3 Sri. B.Keshava Reddy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON

BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P1 Original Agreement of Sale

dated 19/11/2015
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW-2 found in

to (c) Ex.P1
Ex.P1(d) Signature of PW-3 found in
Ex.P1
Ex.P2 Statement of bank account

of Narayana Reddy
Ex.P3 Certified copy of sale deed
dated 20/12/2021
Ex.P4 Certified copy of Sale Deed

dated 16/08/2005
executed by BDA in favour
of Sri.Sanjeeva Reddy
Ex.P5 Khatha extract
Ex.P6 Tax paid receipt issued by
BBMP
Ex.P7 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P8 & Vakalaths
P9
Ex.P10 Death certificate of Rama
Murthy Reddy A.M.,
Ex.P11 Bank Statement

maintained by the Axis
Bank in respect of Plaintiff
OD against property
scheme
Ex.P12 Bank Statement

maintained by the
Karnataka Bank in respect
of Plaintiff OD against
property scheme
Ex.P13 Letter dated 08/07/2024
issued by Karnataka Bank
in respect of the OD
account maintained by
Plaintiff
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON

BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:-
None
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON

BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:-
Nil
XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally
signed by
KALASHETTY
KALASHETTY VIDYA
VIDYA Date:
2024.10.29
13:39:15
+0530

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgment 1 O.S. No.

THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY

PRESENT: K. Vidya B.Sc., M.A., LL.M.,

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2024

Sri. A.D Narayana Reddy,

Aged about 57 years,

(By Sri. T.N.Viswanatha., Advocate)

Date of Institution of 17/12/2021

Date of Commencement 01/07/2023

Date of which Judgment 28/10/2024

Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s

The instant suit is filed by Plaintiff

beseeching reliefs infra:-

 Firstly, by directing Defendant to

execute and register the Sale

Deed in favour of Plaintiff in

respect of the Suit Schedule

Property by receiving the balance

 Secondly, if the Defendant fails

to execute the of Plaintiff with

respect to the suit schedule

property through direct him to

execute through due process of

 Thirdly, to grant permanent

injunction restraining the

Defendant, their agents, servants

or anybody claiming under him

from alienating / encumbering

the schedule property .

 Lastly, to mould such other

reliefs this court deems fit in

facts and circumstances of case.

2. SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

All that Piece and parcel of the property

bearing BDA No. 674, Municipal

Corporation No.674 / 32, katha No.32

PID No.4-110-32 situated at 5th main

road, Gokul 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, BBMP

Ward No.4, Bengaluru in all measuring

2,426 Sq. ft. and bounded on :

East By:- Property No.674/A

herein after referred to as suit schedule

property for sake of brevity.

3. The Factual Matrix circumventing Plaint

1.That, the Defendant is the absolute

owner and in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule

property which he had acquired

from his erstwhile owner Sri.

Muthappa, by virtue of Sale Deed

2.That, the Defendant had

approached the Plaintiff and had

offered to sell same whilst exercising

his right of ownership had executed

Agreement of Sale in favour of

Plaintiff to meet out his family and

legal necessities on 19th November

2018 on stamp paper and the

Plaintiff has agreed to purchase the

same for total sale consideration of