Bangalore District Court
Anand Kumar A vs Devikumari R S on 10 January, 2024
KABC010076052018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
Dated this the 10 th day of January 2024
PRESENT
Sri.Sabappa, B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.2001/2018
PLAINTIFF : Sri. A. Anand Kumar,
S/o Late Aralappa,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.1433, Behind Canara Bank,
Bommanahalli, Begur Road,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(By Sri. Ramachandra R. Naik, Adv.,)
Versus
DEFENDANT : Smt. R.S. Devikumari,
W/o Sri. K.R. Shankar Prasad,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.65, Jain Temple Street,
V.V. Puram, Bengaluru - 560 004.
2
O.S.2001/2018
Also R/at No.373,
24th B Cross,
Banashankari II Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
(By Sri. B.V.K, Adv., )
Date of Institution 14-03-2018
Nature of suit Specific Performance
Date of commencement of
evidence 17-03-2022
Date on which judgment was
pronounced 10-01-2024
Total Duration Years Months Days
05 09 26
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed for Specific Performance of Contract.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff had entered into Agreement of Sale dated 29.04.2005 with respect to sale of all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Nos.1, 2, 3, 8 to 38, all the sites carved in Sy.No.49/10, situated at Anjanpura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which is morefully described in the schedule and hereinafter referred as suit schedule property.
3O.S.2001/2018 It is submitted that, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration at a rate of Rs.440/- per sq.ft. The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.5,00,000/- though cheque on 29.04.2005 and Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid to BDA towards betterment charges to the above mentioned sites on behalf of defendant. Altogether, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as on the date of executing the Agreement of Sale, as earnest money on the date of Agreement of Sale and the receipt thereof was duly acknowledged by defendant before the witnesses thereto. The plaintiff submits that, he had to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,51,92,668/- after receipt of the necessary revenue documents at the time of registration of the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff submits that, he having paid substantial sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,85,20,920/- was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property registered in his name.
It is submitted that, as per the Agreement Clause regarding time of executing the sale deed is fixed to 3 months from the date of Agreement of Sale. But it is orally agreed and understood that the sale deed to be executed after obtaining the kahta of the property from the BDA, till then the Agreement of Sale is in force, and also it is understood that the plaintiff has to follow up the proceedings before the BDA if the defendant did not obtain the Katha within 3 4 O.S.2001/2018 months from the date of Agreement of Sale. The plaintiff is following up the said proceedings for issuing of katha. Defendant has suppressed the material fact that the BDA has issued Acquisition notification to acquire the land mentioned above and the defendant submitted a request to drop the acquisition proceedings against the land belonging to the defendant in Sy.No.49/10 to an extent of 2 acres (Out of 4 acres). Ultimately, the BDA has acquired only 2 acres of the said land and remaining 2 acres had been dropped from the acquisition proceedings. But the defendant did not disclose this fact before the plaintiff. Under the bonafide belief, the plaintiff had entered with the Agreement of Sale. But on the day of executing the Sale Agreement the defendant did not paid the betterment charges to the BDA. Plaintiff had paid the same. The BDA did not issue no objection certificate to defendant to obtain the khatha from BDA. Within any katha of the property the defendant has no authority to execute the sale deed as per the Agreement of Sale entered with the plaintiff.
It is submitted that, BDA has issued an endorsement dated 23.02.2006 and intimated that it has no jurisdiction to collect the betterment charges and also to drop the acquisition proceedings and further informed defendant that BDA has returned the betterment charges and to collect the same. The plaintiff has challenged the said endorsement before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on behalf of the defendant in W.P.No.8963/2007 (LA-BDA) and same was disposed on 23.11.2015. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 5 O.S.2001/2018 has issued a direction to the BDA to collect the additional betterment charges and issue the katha. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the BDA issued a notice dated 02.08.2017 and directed the defendant to deposit additional betterment charges amount of Rs.3,28,252/-. As per the notice dated 02.08.2017, the plaintiff has deposited additional betterment charges of Rs.3,28,252/0 though cheque dated 08.08.2017. The receipt is produced herewith.
It is submitted that, immediately after depositing the additional betterment charges by plaintiff, the same has been informed to the defendant and also requested the defendant to collect NOC and katha to execute the sale deed. In between the BDA has issued No Objection Certificate on 05.01.2018 to issue the katha in the name of defendant. This fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. He once again approached the defendant to execute the sale deed by accepting remaining sale consideration. But till this day, the defendant never responded to plaintiff's request and avoided to execute the sale deed as per the agreement dated 29.04.2005. The plaintiff has contacted defendant several times, but the defendant has been avoiding to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as obligated in terms of the Agreement dated 29.04.2005. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant. Defendant has obtained the NOC from BDA on 05.01.2008 and defendant has received the same on 01.02.2018. After receiving the NOC from 6 O.S.2001/2018 BDA, it is learnt that defendant is trying to alienate the Agreement schedule property to third party. Thereby, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to get the katha immediately and execut the sale deed in his favour at the earliest.
It is submitted that, the plaintiff had shown his readiness in the matter of performing his contract and on many number of occasions, he has called upon the defendant to furnish the relevant revenue documents necessitating registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff has also deposited the additional betterment charges to the BDA on behalf of the defendant. The defendant is well aware of this fact. However, the defendant has been protracting the issue despite receipt of substantial sale consideration. The plaintiff has subsisting right conferred on him by virtue of the Agreement of Sale dated 29.04.2005 in respect of which there is no waiver of right. The plaintiff has right, title and interest to enforce the said Agreement for the relief of Specific Performance. The plaintiff has been ready throughout and willing to perform his part of the contract.
It is submitted that, on 03.03.2018, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant by registered post, thereby calling upon the defendant to receive the balance amount and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said notice was not served on the defendant because the door was locked.
It is submitted that, the plaintiff has not filed any other suit in this Court or before any other Court seeking the same relief on the 7 O.S.2001/2018 same cause of action. The cause of action to file the suit arose on 29.04.2005 the date of the Agreement of Sale executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is orally and understood that after obtaining the katha only sale deed to be executed. The BDA has issued an endorsement dated 23.02.2006 and intimated that it has no jurisdiction to collect the betterment charges and to drop the acquisition proceedings and further informed the defendant that BDA has returned the betterment charges and to collect the same. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has issued direction to BDA to collect additional betterment charges and issue the katha in favour of defendant in W.P.No.8963/2007 and same was disposed on 23.11.2015. The BDA issued notice dated 02.08.2017, it is directed the defendant to deposit additional betterment charges of Rs.3,28,252/-. The BDA has issued no objection certificate on 05.01.2018 to issue the katha in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 03.03.2018 and on subsequent dated which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.
3. After receipt of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement contending that, the suit is barred by time and this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine without further proceedings. The alleged agreement is time bound agreement, which has expired in the month of August 2005 itself and suit has been filed in the year 8 O.S.2001/2018 2018. It is clearly mentioned in the alleged agreement that the time is the essence of the contract. As such there is no necessity to proceed further in the matter. This is a classic where a real estate person used the innocence of a house hold women with a promise to get the best service and price for the lands owner by her. The plaintiff was introduced to the defendant's husband by a common friend, who introduced himself as the person having vast knowledge in the real estate matters, which proved to be wrong by his own conduct over a period of time. Initially the defendant and her husband belief the plaintiff, who initially promised to take care of obtaining all the revenue records from the various government agencies from time to time and make the entire land fit for sale. Plaintiff used all his skills to make the defendant and her husband fall prey to his sweet words. He initially agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards the betterment charges to the BDA. Later made request to the defendant to bear the same, on the pretext that he will get the best price at a later point of time. Believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant's husband with great difficulty arranged the money and paid the said betterment charges through the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not do anything further and matter died down over period of time. Thereafter, the plaintiff again approached the defendant and proposed that he would buy two sites for which the defendant agreed. In order to facilitate such sale, the plaintiff collected some of the papers from the defendant which are now being used by the plaintiff against the defendant and this evil design of the plaintiff was 9 O.S.2001/2018 not anticipated by the defendant. It is submitted that, the agreement has lost is shen and no more enforceable and for failure to enfore the agreement on time, the advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs stands forfeited.
It is further submitted that the contention regarding the agreement of sale is partly admitted. Though the agreement was entered into, the plaintiff himself had no intention to get the sale done in his favour. Infact, he is not a genuine purchaser, rather he is a real estate agent, who facilitates sale and purchaser of lands in small pockets. Plaintiff had no any financial capabilities to purchase vast lands or multiple sites. That was a precise reason, he did not come up to purchase the land for over a decade. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The averments made in para 3 and 4 are partly true to the extent of execution of the agreement. In fact, the agreement had no meaning since plaintiff himself had no idea of purchasing the entire land, rather he only had agreed to facilitate the sale. The averment that the plaintiff had paid Rs.15 lakhs towards the betterment charges are wholly wrong and false. No such payment is made by the plaintiff at any point of time. Infact, the betterment charges are paid by the defendant's husband by making some emergent arrangements, when the plaintiff could not arrange for the same. Since the agreement itself was not a document with any serious 10 O.S.2001/2018 intent or rather it is a sham one, no reliance would be placed on the said document. The documents has neither been adhered nor acted upon. The further averment in para 4 that the plaintiff had paid Rs.30 lakhs to the plaintiff, agreeing to pay the remaining amount is false. On this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed.
It is further submitted that, the averments made in para 5 of the plaint are completely false and baseless. Time was essence of the contract mentioned in the contract itself and the same has expired for over 13 years. The averments that it was orally agreed and understood that the sale deed to be executed after obtaining the katha of the property from the BDA and till then the agreement was to be in force, that the plaintiff has to follow up the proceedings before BDA if the defendant did not obtain the katha within 3 months from the agreement of sale and the plaintiff followed up with BDA for katha and the defendant had suppressed the material fact that the BDA has issued acquisition notification to acquire the lands and the defendant requested the BDA to drop the acquisition proceedings etc., and plaintiff under bonafide belief had entered into agreement and without the katha the plaintiff could not have purchased the property are completely false. It is true that, on the date of agreement, no betterment charges were paid by the plaintiff. In fact, at no point of time, he paid the betterment charges to BDA, rather it is the defendant's husband who arranged funds and plaintiff collected the same from the defendant's husband and paid to BDA.
11O.S.2001/2018 It is further submitted that, the averments made in para 6 of the plaint are meaningless and irrelevant. The allegations made in para 7 and 8 of the plaint are partly true. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had challenged the endorsement of the BDA before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.8963/2007. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had only helped the defendant to find a counsel to file the writ petition. Entire expenses of the litigation was borne by the defendant. It is true that the writ petition was allowed and the defendant paid the money to the plaintiff who in turn paid to BDA. It is true that the BDA had issued notice to the defendant and again the defendant arranged funds and handed over the same to the plaintiff who paid the charges to BDA. Since the plaintiff had represented that he would purchase two sites from the defendant for a fair market price, which was orally agreed at Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft and the defendant had agreed for the same. The defendant allowed the plaintiff to act on her behalf and that's how the plaintiff got possession of the receipts. Since the plaintiff did not show much interest in helping the defendant, the defendant's husband arranged to get the NOC from the BDA. The remaining allegations in para 9 to 13 are denied by this defendant in toto. It is false that the plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant. Infact the plaintiff has played mischief in the matter and stage managed the whole show. There is no demand by the plaintiff which requires attention. There is no cause of action to file the suit against the 12 O.S.2001/2018 defendant. Hence, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor has framed the following issues No.1 to 10.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,85,20,920/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only)?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the time was not the essence of the contract ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was bound to purchase the suit schedule property only after the transfer of Katha in favour of the defendant ?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he had paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as betterment charges to the BDA on behalf of the defendant ?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit is in time ?
7. Whether the defendant proves that the advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs paid by the plaintiff is liable to be forfeited ?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the Agreement dated 29-04-2005 ?
13O.S.2001/2018
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any alternative relief ?
10. What Order/Decree ?
5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff is examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and closed his side. The defendant examined herself as DW.1 and also got examined one witness as DW.2. No documents marked on behalf of the defendant.
6. Heard the argument of both the sides.
7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, my answer to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Does not survive for consideration,
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.7 : In the Negative,
Issue No.8 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.9 : Does not survive for consideration,
Issue No.10 : As per final order;
For the following ;
14
O.S.2001/2018
REASONS
8. ISSUES NO.1 & 4 : These two issues are connected to each other. Hence, these issues are taken-up together as they could be disposed by a common reasoning and to avoid repetition of facts.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued and submitted that, the plaintiff filed the present suit for Specific Performance of Contract. The Sale Agreement is held between the plaintiff and defendant in 2005. Suit schedule property Sy.No.49/10 measuring 2 acres. Out of it 38 sites are formed by the defendant. Later on, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property. The sale consideration is fixed at the rate of Rs.440/- per sq.ft. Out of it, the plaintiff has paid Rs.5 lakhs by way of account transfer and remaining Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash. Remaining Rs.15 lakhs is paid towards betterment charges to the BDA. In the meantime, the BDA initiated proceedings to acquire the suit schedule property. Thereby, the defendant requested the BDA to drop the acquisition proceedings. In the meantime, the BDA issued notice. Thereby, the defendant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka through the plaintiff and filed Writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the Writ Petition and directed the BDA to take betterment charges and drop the acquisition proceedings. Thereby, the plaintiff has paid betterment charges of Rs.15 lakhs by way of D.D to the BDA. At the relevant point of time khatha is not effect by the BDA in the name of the plaintiff. Thereby, there is delay for 15 O.S.2001/2018 executing the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. There was oral understanding between the plaintiff and defendant regarding Agreement. Moreover, the defendant never disputed about the contents of Ex.P.1. The defendant admitted in the evidence regarding execution of the agreement as well as receiving part sale consideration amount. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Due to proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and BDA the defendant is not able to place the khatha to execute the regular sale deed. It is admitted by the defendant during the course of evidence. Thereby, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought in this suit.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued and submitted that, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.P.1 Agreement of Sale. It does not disclose the value of the property. Description is also not disclosed in Ex.P.1. The very suit is barred by time. Ex.P.1 relied by the plaintiff itself is sufficient to hold that time is essence of contract. It is not complied by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff is not able to disclose the true facts before this Court. He is not able to made out sufficient grounds that since the date of Agreement of Sale he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant admitted about the receiving of advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Remaining Rs.15 lakhs is paid to the BDA towards betterment charges by the defendant husband. There is no consideration amount paid in favour of the defendant as per Ex.P.1.
16O.S.2001/2018 The plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that he has paid the betterment charges to the BDA. The material admission on the part of the plaintiff is clearly goes to show that the suit is barred by time. Moreover, the plaintiff has not shown any ready and willingness to perform his part of the contract. When the documents itself speaks that the time is the essence of contract, it is the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the said fact with cogent evidence and documents. Here in this case, the plaintiff is not able to prove the said aspect with cogent evidence and document. Thereby, the present suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. This aspect is elicited from the mouth of the plaintiff during the course of evidence. On this ground the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The defendant has also relied upon the citations reported in :
1) Civil Appeal No.4703/2022,
2) 1997(3) SCC1,
3) (1995)5 SCC 115,
4) (2020)3 SCC 280,
5) (1993)1 SCC 519,
6) AIR 2015 Mad 73,
7) ILR 1981 Kar 819,
8) (2011)12 SCC 18, 17 O.S.2001/2018
9) Civil Appeal No.921/2022.
10. I have gone through the pleadings, evidence and documents relied by the parties. It is undisputed fact that, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property as in the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale. It is undisputed fact that Ex.P.1 Agreement of Sale held between the plaintiff and defendant on 29.04.2005. Both the parties have not disputed about the contents of Ex.P.1. This goes to show that, there is Sale Agreement in respect of the suit schedule property between the plaintiff and defendant. It is further noticed that, the plaintiff has made payment of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash and Rs.5 lakhs by account transfer to the defendant. It is also not disputed by the defendant in the pleadings and evidence. Thereby, one thing is clear that the plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the defendant as on the date of Agreement of Sale. It is further noticed that, the plaintiff stated that, another Rs.15 lakhs is paid to the BDA towards betterment charges on behalf of the defendant and the defendant has acknowledged the total sum of Rs.30 lakhs as advance. This point is disputed by the defendant in the pleadings and evidence. Thereby, it is better to refer the document relied by the plaintiff at Ex.P.10. It is the account extract of the plaintiff. It clearly reflected that on 28.05.2005 the plaintiff has made payment of Rs.15 lakhs to the BDA through cheque. This goes to show that, the contention of the defendant that the betterment charges is not paid by the plaintiff is not holds good. It is pertinent to 18 O.S.2001/2018 note that the documentary evidence prevail over the oral evidence of the parties. The plaintiff placed account extract. It clearly reveals that the plaintiff has made payment towards betterment charges of Rs.15 lakhs in the month of May 2005. Thereby, the contention of the defendant that, she has paid Rs.15 lakhs towards betterment charges to the BDA is not sufficient to believe that the defendant has paid the said amount. In case, the defendant paid the said amount, the defendant ought to have place any documentary evidence. There is no such documentary evidence placed by the defendant in this case. Thereby, the oral evidence of the plaintiff and documents clearly goes to show that, the plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs.30 lakhs at the time of execution of Agreement of Sale. It is proved with documentary evidence.
11. It is no doubt, at Ex.P.1 the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,85,20,920/- is not mentioned. But it is clearly mentioned that, the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.440/- per sq.ft. The total sites formed by the defendant is
38. Out of it, defendant has retained 4 sites and remaining sites are agreed to sell to the plaintiff. Thereby, based on the amount mentioned in Ex.P.1, the plaintiff has calculated the total amount of sale consideration of Rs.1,85,20,920/-. It is further noticed that, the defendant never disputed about the sale consideration amount mentioned by the plaintiff in the pleadings and evidence. Though the learned counsel for the defendant testified the plaintiff in length, 19 O.S.2001/2018 however he has not put any suggestion to the plaintiff during the course of evidence. That amount mentioned in the plaint and evidence is incorrect. This goes to show that, the defendant has admitted about the sale consideration mentioned by the plaintiff in the pleadings and evidence.
12. At this juncture, I would like to refer the oral evidence of the parties. The plaintiff has clearly stated in the evidence and placed the documents. The defendant never disputed about the contents of Ex.P.1 and signature. This goes to show that the defendant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement. At the same time, the defendant herself examined as DW.1 in this case. Though she has denied about the case of the plaintiff, however during the course of cross-examination conducted by the plaintiff counsel she admitted that suit schedule property is her self acquired property. She know Kannada language. The sale agreement is held between herself and plaintiff on 29.04.2005. She knows the contents of agreement. She further admitted that, she has received Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash and Rs.5 lakhs by account transfer. She has further admitted that the plaintiff has paid betterment charges of Rs.15 lakhs to the BDA. She further admitted that, as per the Agreement of sale transaction has to complete within 3 months. Before that, the suit schedule property is acquired by the BDA. This goes to show that, once the BDA has initiated proceedings to acquire the suit schedule property, it is not possible 20 O.S.2001/2018 to execute the regular sale deed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The material admission on the part of the defendant itself is sufficient to hold that, though the Agreement of Sale is held on 29.04.2005, later on the BDA has initiated proceedings to acquire the suit schedule property, thereby, both the parties are not able to fulfill the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. DW.1 further admitted that, she has no impediment to pay betterment charges of Rs.15 lakhs. But she stated that plaintiff assured that he is going to pay the said amount. Thereby, she has not paid the betterment charges. DW.1 further admitted that, in order to save the suit schedule property by acquisition proceedings the plaintiff paid the betterment charges of Rs.15 lakhs on her behalf. On this point, she is not able to say anything about the agreement. She further admitted that, BDA has issued notice stating that, they are going to return the betterment charges in the year 2007. Thereby, the defendant filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Later on, she has succeeded in the said Writ Petition and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has directed the BDA to take betterment charges and issue khatha. This evidence is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of the Agreement of Sale by oral and documentary evidence. At the same time, the defendant bring the owner of the suit schedule property has also admitted about the contents of Ex.P.1 and received advance amount from the plaintiff. Thereby, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff 21 O.S.2001/2018 is able to prove these issues with cogent evidence and documents. Hence, I answer Issues No.1 and 4 in the Affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.5 :- The plaintiff stated in the pleadings and evidence that, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This allegation is disputed by the defendant in the written statement and evidence. The learned counsel for the defendant draw the attention of the Court that, the plaintiff never made any efforts to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract since the date of Sale Agreement. On that point, I would like to refer the material documents marked at Ex.P.1. At page 3, both the parties are agreed that, the defendant shall convey suit schedule property free from all encumbrances, attachments, court proceedings or charge of any kind. The defendant shall handover the copy of the original sale deed, upto date tax paid receipt and encumbrance certificate etc., to the plaintiff at the time of registration. The defendant has agreed to receive the sale consideration as on physical possession of the schedule sites delivered at the time of registration. The defendant also assured to the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is free from all kinds of encumbrances, prior agreement of sale, court decree attachments, etc., However, if any encumbrances or disputes found in future, the defendant has agreed to set right the same at her risk and cost. It is further noticed that, when the sale agreement is held between the plaintiff and defendant in April 2005, later on the BDA has initiated 22 O.S.2001/2018 proceeding to acquire the entire Sy.No.49/10 measuring 4 acres. The very defendant has submitted a requested the BDA to drop the acquisition proceedings against the land belonging to the defendant in Sy.No.49/10 to an extent of 2 acres out of 4 acres. Ultimately, the BDA has acquired only 2 acres of the said land and remaining 2 acres had been dropped from the acquisition proceedings. Thereby, the plaintiff had entered with the Agreement of Sale. But as on the day of executing the sale agreement the defendant had not paid the betterment charges to the BDA. Thereby, the plaintiff had paid the same. But the BDA is not ready to accept the same. Thereby, the defendant filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the said Writ Petition the BDA appeared through the respective counsel. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the order in Writ Petition dated 23.11.2015 and issued direction to the BDA to collect the betterment charges and issue khatha. Again plaintiff paid additional betterment charges on behalf of the defendant. It is reflected in Ex.P.10. All these proceedings are clearly goes to show that, since the date of agreement of sale, the plaintiff is assisting the defendant to clear the acquisition proceedings as well as paid the betterment charges and the dispute is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on behalf of the defendant. It is admitted by the defendant during the course of evidence. This goes to show that, the plaintiff since the date of agreement of sale he has assisted the defendant with regard to executing the regular sale deed. Moreover, the defendant never 23 O.S.2001/2018 stated that, after execution of the agreement of sale, she obtained katha and ready to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the remaining balance sale consideration amount. There is no such pleadings or evidence on behalf of the defendant in this case. Thereby, the evidence of the plaintiff and documents as well as acquisition proceedings intimated by the BDA reveals that it will take time. Both the plaintiff and defendant knew about the proceedings. Thereby, the plaintiff since the date of agreement of sale is ready to perform his part of contract. On the other hand, the defendant never stated that, she had katha, E.C, original sale deed and called upon the plaintiff to take regular sale deed by payment of remaining sale consideration amount. There is no such pleadings or evidence on the side of the defendant. Thereby, in view of the oral evidence of the plaintiff and documents, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is able to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. On the other hand, the defendant has not placed any documentary evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2 :- On perusal of the plaint and written statement, the plaintiff never stated that, the time is not the essence of contract. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of framing the issues the Court will go through the averments made in the plaint as well as written statement. Here in this case, the plaintiff has not 24 O.S.2001/2018 stated anywhere in the plaint that the time is not essence of the contract. Thereby, this Issue does not survive for consideration.
15. ISSUE NO.3 :- I have gone through the plaint, written statement and oral evidence and documents relied by the parties. It is no doubt, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property. The defendant has also agreed the terms and conditions of Ex.P.1. Both are admitted about the contents of Ex.P.1. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of sale agreement held between the parties, the defendant has not placed any khatha in respect of the suit schedule property. It is mentioned in the documents. At Ex.P.1, at page 4 the defendant has undertaken to produce E.C, katha, original sale deed, tax paid receipts etc., In the meantime, the BDA has initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.49/10. It is admitted by both the parties in the pleadings and evidence. It is pertinent to note that, in case the defendant obtained the katha at the relevant point of time, she could have produced the same before the court. There is no such documents on the side of the defendant in this case. If any immovable property is purchased by the parties, it is the duty of the owner of the property to place katha or RTC or any other documents to register the same before the Sub-Registrar. Here in this case, the defendant never pleaded or stated in the evidence that she has placed katha extract regarding suit schedule property at the time of agreement nor subsequent to the agreement of sale. There is no such contention by the defendant in this case. Moreover, 25 O.S.2001/2018 the plaintiff is not able to get the sale deed without katha extract submitted by the defendant. Thereby, it is clear cut case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not able to furnish the relevant document to register the regular sale deed, then the plaintiff ought to have obtain the registered document. Otherwise, it is not possible to get the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. At this juncture, I would like to refer the evidence of DW.1. At page 6 of the cross-examination, defendant deposed that she has no katha in her name. If katha is issued by the BDA, both are agreed to register the document. But defendant deposed that, the plaintiff stated that, he would sell the suit schedule property to valuable consideration. On that ground, there was agreement between herself and the plaintiff. If it is so, there is no impediment on the part of the defendant to disclose the said fact in the pleadings or evidence. There is no such pleadings on the side of the defendant.
16. Another point to be noted here, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon her to receive the balance amount and execute the regular sale deed. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff on 03.03.2018 to the address of the defendant. The defendant admitted the address mentioned in the postal receipt and legal notice are one and the same. She was residing in the said address. It is presumed that the said legal notice is duly served upon the defendant. Inspite of it, the defendant has not replied nor complied any terms of the legal notice. The defendant's counsel 26 O.S.2001/2018 never put any suggestion to the plaintiff during the course of evidence that, the legal notice is not served upon the defendant. This goes to show that, the defendant is having knowledge about the contents of legal notice. Inspite of it, she is not diligent to reply the same. Thereby, I am of the opinion that the oral testimony of the plaintiff and documents and admission of the defendant is sufficient to hold that, in case the defendant furnished the katha at the relevant point of time, the plaintiff ought to have paid the remaining balance and obtained the regular sale deed. It is pertinent to note that, katha in respect of the suit schedule property is important document to register the sale deed. Otherwise, the concerned Sub-Registrar is not able to register the document in the name of the plaintiff. Thereby, the plaintiff is able to prove the above issue with cogent evidence and documents. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.6 :- On perusal of the pleadings and evidence, it is noticed that this issue is framed by my Predecessor in the office and put the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the suit is in time. At the same time, the defendant's counsel vehemently argued and submitted that, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is not seeking relief within 3 years from the date of agreement of sale. Thereby, the suit is barred by time and limitation etc., On this point, the learned counsel for the defendant also relied upon some citations in this case.
27O.S.2001/2018
18. Now, I would like to discuss about the documents and oral evidence relied by both the parties in this case. The entire case is depending upon the agreement of sale marked at Ex.P.1. It is noticed that, though the defendant admitted about the contents of agreement of sale as well as signature, the presumption is automatically arises that both are agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. At the same time, the documents relied by the plaintiff at Exs.P.2 to P.5 are the certified copy of the proceedings conducted by BDA in respect of acquisition in respect of Sy.No.49/10 measuring 2 acres, BDA has also issued notice to the defendant in order to acquire the property. At the same time, the very defendant preferred Writ Petition against BDA, BBMP and Dy.Commissioner. Later on, the BDA officers have appeared before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka heard on both sides and passed the order. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to exclude the sites purchased by the petitioners from the process of acquisition initiated through the Notification dated 20.03.1999 and 28.08.2000. In that view, there is no need to grant the alternate relief sought by the petitioners to quash the said Notifications. In the light of the directions issued to exclude the sites, the Respondents No.1 and 2 shall now proceed to assess the betterment charges payable by the petitioners, adjust the amount, if already paid by the petitioners and demand the balance payment to be made by the petitioners. On the petitioners complying with the said demand for payment of betterment charges, the 28 O.S.2001/2018 regularization of the sites in favour of the petitioners shall be made by issue of appropriate endorsement, document or khatha certificates which shall enable the petitioners to secure further khatha entires and certificates from Civic Authorities/Local Authority within whose jurisdiction the property is presently situate. This goes to show that, before execution of Ex.P.1, BDA has issued acquisition proceedings in 1999-2000. Thereby, khatha is not recorded in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings held between the BDA and defendant, one thing is clear that the time is not essence of contract. Both the parties are agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, the BDA has dropped the acquisition proceedings regarding acquisition of property of 2 acres in Sy.No.49/10. Thereby, the defendant is not able to get the khatha from the BDA. Thereby, she is not able to execute the regular sale deed. At the same time, the remaining documents at Ex.P.4 reveals that, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the BDA has issued notice to the defendant on 02.08.2017 and directed to pay additional betterment charges of Rs.3,28,252/-. This goes to show that, the BDA has dropped the acquisition proceedings regarding 2 acres of land belonged to the defendant and directed to pay the betterment charges. Thereby, the defendant has deposited the betterment charges to the BDA as per Ex.P.5. The said receipt stands in the name of the defendant. However, Ex.P.10 account extract of the plaintiff reveals that, he has directly transferred the amount to BDA on behalf of the defendant.
29O.S.2001/2018 Thereby, it is presumed that in terms of agreement of sale entered between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff shall pay the betterment charges to the BDA. It is complied by the plaintiff. At the same time, on perusal of Ex.P.6 endorsement issued by the BDA reveals that BDA has received the additional betterment charges. Another document at Ex.P.9 is the BDA remittance challan. It reveals that, the defendant deposited an amount of Rs.14,06,795.00. It is also reflected in the account extract of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has transferred the said amount to the BDA on behalf of the defendant. All these documents reveals that, at the relevant point of time, the defendant is not having khatha in her name. Thereby, she is not able to register the document. It is elicited by the plaintiff's counsel during the course of defendant's evidence.
19. At the same time, it is better to refer the evidence of DW.2. He deposed about the same set of facts as stated by DW.1. DW.2 being the husband of DW.1 stated about the facts narrated by DW.1 in the defence. He further stated that, at no point of time the plaintiff has paid Rs.30 lakhs to the defendant. He has admitted about the Writ Petition as well as acquisition proceedings conducted by the BDA. He has admitted abut the amount of Rs.440/- per sq.ft regarding value of the suit schedule property. Though he has stated that betterment charges is paid by him through the plaintiff, however he is not able to place documentary evidence. Thereby, the evidence 30 O.S.2001/2018 of DW.2 is also not helpful to the defendant to prove that she has paid the betterment charges to the BDA.
20. It is the case of the defendant that, the time is the essence of contract. The suit is barred by time. On this point, I would like to discuss about the proceedings initiated by the BDA in the year 2006. The same is challenged by the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Pet.No.8963/2007 (LA-BDA) in 2007. The said Writ Petition is disposed in the year 2015. It goes to show that, when the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka regarding acquisition proceedings conducted by the BDA it is not possible to hold that the defendant is ready to execute the registered sale deed. Moreover, khatha is not recorded by the concerned authority in the name of the defendant at the relevant point of time. Later on, BDA has obtained additional betterment charges from the defendant and issued khatha in the year 2018. Thereby, it clearly goes to show that limitation point starts from 2005 to 2018. It is no doubt, the document at Ex.P.1 reflected that time is the essence of contract. Due to acquisition proceedings and subsequent event pending before the BDA as well as Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka both parties are not able to perform their part of contract. Thereby, I am of the opinion that the essence of contract as mentioned in Ex.P.1 could not be able to perform by the parties. It is pertinent to note that, delay is not caused by the plaintiff alone, both are having knowledge about the acquisition proceedings and Writ 31 O.S.2001/2018 Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thereby, the stand taken by the defendant that the present suit is barred by time is not holds good.
21. At the same time, I would like to mention that the learned counsel for the defendant draw the attention of the Court that the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to execute the sale deed after lapse of 12 year 9 months. Moreover, the plaintiff stated that there is oral understanding between the plaintiff and defendant regarding extension of time to perform their part of contract. All these facts are not proved by the plaintiff. There is no reference as to what is the total consideration of the property, balance payable, nor contention that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration. No date of such oral agreement and till when such extension was agreed is forthcoming in pleading or in the evidence of the plaintiff. Ex.P.1 held on 29.04.2005. But the betterment charges was paid on 30.05.2005 which shows that the agreement contents are false. This aspect is not stated in Ex.P.1 nor in Ex.P.4 notice and it is not stated as to how the amount is calculated. On this point, I would like to mention that the defendant being the party to the agreement of sale, never disputed the contents of Ex.P.1 in her pleadings and evidence. Thereby, the argument canvassed by the defendant's counsel is not proper and correct.
32O.S.2001/2018
22. At the same time, I would like to refer the citation relied by the defendant's counsel reported in Civil Appeal No.4703/2022, U.N.Krishnamurthy V/s A.M.Krishnamurthy, wherein it is observed that, "Condition precedent continuous willingness and readiness. Readiness means capacity to perform contract, includes financial position. Willingness relates to conduct of plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove that he has the money or has alternatively made necessary arrangements to get the money by adducing necessary evidence. The suit is filed after 3 years also a ground to deny relief of specific performance. Court obliged to take judicial notice of phenomenal rise in the price of the real estate. Insignificant consideration paid by plaintiff not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance."
Here in this case, on perusal of the pleadings and evidence, it is clearly noticed that at the relevant point of time, the plaintiff paid advance amount of Rs.30 lakhs. It is proved by the plaintiff with cogent evidence and documents. At the same time, the plaintiff relied upon the documents at Exs.P.11, P.12 and P.13. Those are the certified copies of the Sale deed, income tax returns. It reveals that the plaintiff has sold the immovable property in the year 2008 and he has obtained the amount. Moreover, the plaintiff is also an income tax assesee. This goes to show that, the plaintiff is having sufficient source of income to pay the balance amount to the defendant. On this point the learned counsel for the defendant never put any suggestion to the plaintiff during the course of evidence that the 33 O.S.2001/2018 plaintiff is not having sufficient source of income to pay remaining balance sale consideration amount. Thereby, this Court come to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected citation and the facts and circumstances of the present case are not one and the same. Hence, the above respected citation is not applicable to the present case on hand.
23. Now, I would like to refer another citation relied by the defendant reported in (1997)3 SCC 1, K.S.Vidyanadam & Others V/s Vairavan, wherein it is held that :
"Property located in urban property conduct of plaintiff should be noted. Delay and latches. Even if time is not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of contract within a reasonable time. Suit for specific performance to be filed within a period of 3 years. Delay coupled with substantial raise in prices. Inequitable to grant relief of specific performance."
Here in this case, the plaintiff has specifically stated that, though the agreement is held between the plaintiff and defendant in 2005, later on the plaintiff has paid the betterment charges in the month of May 2005. In the year 2006 the BDA has issued notice to the defendant regarding acquisition of Sy.No.49/10. It is also noticed that the BDA is not ready to take betterment charges from the defendant. The same is challenged by the defendant in 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It was disposed in 2015. Thereby, it is not 34 O.S.2001/2018 possible to perform their part of contract by both the parties. This goes to show that, the plaintiff alone is not responsible for the delay caused to get the sale deed from the defendant. The plaintiff since the date of agreement of sale he is assisting the defendant as well as made efforts to get katha from the BDA as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thereby, all these facts clearly goes to show that there is no delay on the part of the plaintiff to get the sale deed from the defendant. Thereby, I am of the opinion that the facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected citation and the facts and circumstances of the present case are not one and the same. Hence, the above respected citation is not applicable to the present case on hand.
24. Now, I would like to refer another citation relied by the defendant reported in (1995)5 SCC 115, (2020)3 SCC 280, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :
"Lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract by the plaintiff as he neither deposited money nor has given bank guarantee. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part to perform the contract is the condition precedent to grant of relief of specific performance. The continuous readiness and willing on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. The conduct of the plaintiff before and after filing of the suit is important."35
O.S.2001/2018 It is pertinent to note that, the defendant being the owner of the suit schedule property, nowhere stated that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon her for perform her part of the contract. Thereby, it clearly goes to show that, though the defendant is having knowledge about the legal notice, inspite of it she is not diligent to reply the legal notice. Thereby, in my opinion the plaintiff has shown readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract since the date of agreement till issuance of legal notice. Thereby, this Court come to the conclusion that, the facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected citation and the facts and circumstances of the present case are not one and the same. Hence, the above respected citation is not applicable to the present case on hand. The remaining citations relied by the defendant's counsel is also in the same line of arguments in respect of time is the essence of contract.
25. I have gone through all the citations relied by the defendant's counsel, wherein it is observed that, when time is the essence of agreement insofar as the sale price is concerned, the delay on the part of the plaintiff in not performing his part of contract and taking advantage of his own wrong cannot be permitted. Person who comes to claim for specific performance has to establish his readiness and willingness throughout from the date of agreement till the date of filing of the suit. Where a date is fixed for performance of 36 O.S.2001/2018 contract, the limitation is 3 years. When no date is fixed for performance of contract, a period of 3 years has to be reckoned from the day the plaintiff has notice of refusal. It is no doubt, time is the essence of contract in this case. It is admitted by both the parties. Due to the acquisition proceedings conducted by the BDA and Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, both the parties are not able to perform their part of contract. Thereby, in my opinion the plaintiff since the date of agreement, he has assisted the plaintiff and proceeded with the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thereby, in my opinion the defendant is not able to made out any grounds that the plaintiff has committed fault or he is not ready to show any readiness and willingness in performing his part of contract. In case, if the defendant placed the documents as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and the defendant is ready and willing to perform her part of contract and plaintiff is not ready to perform his part of contract, then the Court has to take adverse inference against the plaintiff. Here in this case, there is no such documents placed by the defendant. Hence, this Court come to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances discussed in the above respected citations and the facts and circumstances of the present case are not one and the same. Hence, the above respected citations relied by the defendant are not applicable to the present case on hand. In view of the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the entire evidence of both the parties and documents, one thing is clear that the point raised by the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation 37 O.S.2001/2018 is not holds good. It is proved by the plaintiff with cogent oral evidence and documentary evidence. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.7 :- The defendant contended that the advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs paid by the plaintiff is liable to be forfeited. The evidence on the side of the defendant does not show that, she has issued legal notice calling upon the plaintiff that she is ready to perform her part of contract. In case, the plaintiff is not ready to perform his part of contract, the agreement amount is likely to be forfeited by the defendant. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.P.1, it never discloses that in case the plaintiff fails to perform his part of contract, the advance amount shall be forfeited by the defendant. Moreover, the defendant is not able to prove this issue with cogent evidence and material admission from the mouth of the plaintiff. Thereby, the defendant failed to prove this issue. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 in the Negative.
27. ISSUE NO.8 :- In view of the above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is able to prove the above issues with cogent evidence and documents. Moreover, the stand taken by the defendant is not able to prove with cogent evidence and documents. It is no doubt, the agreement of sale is held in the year 2005. Due to acquisition proceedings and Writ Petition both the 38 O.S.2001/2018 parties are not able to perform their part of contract and the BDA has also not issued khatha in the name of the defendant. Later on, the BDA has accepted the betterment charges and issued khatha in the name of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon her to perform her part of contract. Therefore, the defendant is not able to prove her contention with cogent evidence and document. The material admission made by the defendant during the course of her evidence itself is sufficient to hold that the defendant has admitted about the agreement of sale. It is proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for. Hence, I answer Issue No.8 in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.9 : On perusal of the prayer sought by the plaintiff, regarding alternative relief in this suit, the plaintiff is able to prove the case with cogent evidence and documents. Thereby, the question does not arise to grant alternative relief to the plaintiff. Hence, this Issue does not survive for consideration.
30. ISSUE NO.10 : In view of my findings on Issues No.1 to 9, I proceed to pass the following :
39O.S.2001/2018 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this order.
The plaintiff is directed to pay remaining sale consideration amount to the defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed.
In case defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff shall deposit the remaining sale consideration amount before this Court and obtain the registered sale deed through Court Commissioner.
Both the parties should bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of January, 2024) (SABAPPA) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.40
O.S.2001/2018 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : A. Anand Kumar DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 : Agreement of sale, Ex.P.2 : True copy of BDA order, Ex.P.3 : Copy of Writ.Pet.No.12962/2015, Ex.P.4 : Copy of the notice dated 02.08.2017, Ex.P.5 : BDA Remittance challan, Ex.P.6 : Endorsement issued by BDA, Ex.P.7 : Legal notice dated 03.03.2018, Ex.P.8 : Postal receipt, Ex.P.9 : BDA remittance challan, Ex.P.10 : Account extract, Ex.P.11 : Copy of the sale deed, Exs.P.12 & P.13 : I.T returns Ex.P.14 : Certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. 41 O.S.2001/2018
WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : Smt. R.S. Devikumari, DW.2 : Sri. R.S. Shankar Prasad.
DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT :
- NIL -
(SABAPPA) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.42
O.S.2001/2018 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this order.
The plaintiff is directed to pay remaining sale consideration amount to the defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed.
In case defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff shall deposit the remaining sale consideration amount before this Court and obtain the registered sale deed through Court Commissioner.
Both the parties should bear their own costs.
LXVIII A.C.C & S.J, Bengaluru City.