Bangalore District Court
M/S Rameshwaram Industries vs M/S Jade Ventures on 23 March, 2026
COM.O.S.1409/2024
KABC170027612024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED
COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU (CCH-84)
DATED ON THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026.
PRESENT: SRI.C.D.KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.,
LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
C/C LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVI AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.1409/2024
PLAINTIFF : M/s Rameshwaram Industries
A Partnership Firm
Registered under Indian Partnership Act,
Having its registered office at 3rd Street,
Shukla Colony, P.O. Doranda, Hinoo,
RANCHI-834 002.
And Branch Office at:
R/at B-2, 1401, 14th Floor, 'ELITA
PROMENADE', J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 078.
Rep. by its Partner
Mr.Chandrakant Raipat
S/o Late Pratapsinh Raipat
Aged about 59 years
R/at B-2, 1401, 14th Floor,
2 COM.O.S.1409/2024
'ELITA PROMENADE', J.P.Nagar
7th Phase, Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Sri.M.M.S.-Advocate)
- V/S -
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s Jade Ventures
A Partnership Firm
Registered under Indian Partnership
Act, Having its office at Sy.No.94,
Arekere Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Rep. by its Partners.
a) Mr.P.Chand Basha
S/o Late P.Mohammed Khan
Aged about 55 years
b) Mrs.Shalini.K.
W/o Mr.Arya Lohith Reddy
Aged about 33 years
2. Mr.P.Chand Basha
S/o Late P.Mohammed Khan
Aged about 55 years
Partner of M/s Jade Ventures
Office at Sy.No.94, Arekere Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3. Mrs.Shalini.K.
W/o Mr.Arya Lohith Reddy
Aged about 33 years
Partner of M/s Jade Ventures
Office at Sy.No.94, Arekere Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3 COM.O.S.1409/2024
4. Mr.Sunil Kumar Taleda
S/o Mr.Shanthilal Taleda
Aged about 49 years
R/at Flat No.11, No.401,
Prestige Andree Residence,
Andree Road, Near Yellamma Dasappa
Hospital, Shanthingar,
Bangalore-560 027.
(D1, D2 and D4-By Sri.A.L.-Advocate)
(D3-By Sri.S.T.N.-Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 21.10.2024
Nature of the suit (suit on
pro-note, suit for declaration
Recovery of Money
& Possession, Suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of
02.07.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was
23.03.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 05 02
(C.D.KAROSHI)
C/C LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT)
BENGALURU (CCH-84)
4 COM.O.S.1409/2024
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- paid under an Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2021 along with interest @ 18% p.a. and cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts are as under:-
That, plaintiff is a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act having its registered office during business of real estate and other businesses. The Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and the Defendant No.2 and 3 are its partners. The Defendant No.1 and 4 are the co-owners of the land measuring 39.8 Guntas in Sy. No.94, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. During the course of the business, the Plaintiff intended to purchase some good property in and around Beguru Hobli, Bangalore for putting up a residential apartment complex and during the said search, the officials of the Defendant No.1 had approached the 5 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Plaintiff stating the Defendant No.1 and 4 are the owners of land measuring 39.8 Guntas in Sy. No.94, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk and had offered to sell a portion of the said land i.e. land measuring 12.08 Guntas in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly the Plaintiff had visited the property and even had discussions with the Defendant No.1 to 4 regarding the purchase of the said portion of land in Sy. No.94 at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. During the said discussions, the Plaintiff had clearly state that they will be buying only the property with clear title and possession, to which Defendant No.1 to 4 had stated that the Defendant No.1 and 4 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No.94 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and they had also stated that absolutely there is no dispute regarding title or possession of the land measuring 39.8 Guntas in Sy. No.94, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Based on the 6 COM.O.S.1409/2024 assurance and inducement of the Defendant No.1 and 4, the Plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit proerty and after the discussions the total sale consideration in respect of the schedule property was fixed at Rs.6,30,00,000/- (Rupees six crores thirty lakhs only). Accordingly, an agreement for sale was executed on 17.11.2021 by the Defendant No.1 to 4 where in which the Defendant No.1 to 4 had agreed to sell the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff and even the said agreement of sale was registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Jayanagar (Bommanahalli), Bangalore as Document No. BMH-1-05733-2021-22 of Book No.1, stored in CD No. BMHD1514. As per the agreed terms the Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.2 crores as advance sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 and 4.
Further it is averred that as per the terms of the said agreement of 4 were supposed to get the bifurcated khatha in sale, the Defendant No.1in respect of the schedule property and thereafter they had to execute the sale deed in 7 COM.O.S.1409/2024 favour of the Plaintiff. Even under the said agreement of sale, the Defendant No.1 to 4 had represented to the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 and 4 are the absolute owners of schedule property and there is no lis-pendency and claims of any nature. After the execution of said agreement of sale by the Defendant No.1 to 4 in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff from time to time have been insisting upon Defendant No.1 to 4 to complete the sale process, execute the sale deed in its favour and to handover the peaceful possession of the schedule property and all the time the Plaintiff was ready to perform its part of contract i.e. to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered in its name. But the Defendant No.1 to 4 were avoiding to complete the sale process by receiving the balance consideration on one pretext or the other in spite of agreeing to execute the sale deed within three months by fulfilling all the terms of the said agreement of sale. Because of the delay in execution of the 8 COM.O.S.1409/2024 sale deed, the Plaintiff was put to great financial loss as it had intended to buy the schedule property for putting up the apartment complex and even it had paid huge money as advance sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 to 4. Thereafter all of a sudden, the Plaintiff receive a notice from M/s. PR & PR Associates, Advocates on behalf of their clients namely, Smt.Ananda Devi Agarwal, W/o Late Sri.Kirorimal Singhal @ Agarwal, Sri.Shivakumar Singhal, S/o Late Sri.Kironmal Singhal @ Agarwal, Smt.Krishna Devi Agarwal, W/o. Sri. Shivakumar Singhal Agarwal, Sri.Vikas Kumar Singhal, S/o Sri.Shivakumar Singhal Agarwal, where in which it was claimed that the seller of the Defendant No.1 and 4 i.e. Mr.Jayarama Reddy had already sold the entire land in Sy. No.94 in favour of Sri.Kirorimal Singhal @ Agarwal vide a registered Deed dated 14.04.1994 and their clients are in peaceful possession over the land in Sy.No.94 etc. Even it was informed that a suit seeking declaration of title and 9 COM.O.S.1409/2024 consequential injunction in O.S.No.1395/2021 is being filed same is pending before the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore etc. The contents of the aforesaid notice make it clear that there is a dispute of title of the schedule property. The Defendant No.1 and 4 had stated that the schedule property was purchased under a Deed of Sale dated 25.01.2021, whereas these persons who had caused notice dated 25.05.2023 claims to have purchased the land in Sy. No.94, way back in the year 1994 from the same person G. Jayaram Reddy. Further it can be seen that the Defendant No.1 to 4 had also concealed the fact of pendency of a civil suit with respect to the schedule property and by misrepresentation and by concealment of facts, had made the Plaintiff to enter into an agreement for sale in respect of the schedule property. Even when the Plaintiff had confronted Defendant No.1 to 4 with the notice dated 25th May 2023, they failed to reply the same and started to evade the Plaintiff and by this it is clear that the 10 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Defendant No.1 to 4 had executed the sale agreement with an intention of cheating the Plaintiff and nothing else. After being shocked and surprised by receiving such notice, the Plaintiff had caused a notice dated 22.06.2023, to the Defendant No.1 to 4 where in which the Plaintiff had called upon the Defendant No.1 to 4 to explain its position and correctness of the facts alleged in the legal notice dated 25th May 2023 and had requested to clarify the same within fifteen days failing and to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff, failing which to return the entire amount received by Defendant No.1 to 4 i.e. Rupees two crores along with interest @18%. In spite of the said notice Defendant No.1 to 4 failed to reply the same nor have come forward to execute the sale deed or refund the advance sale consideration as demanded. As the title of the schedule property is under dispute, the Plaintiff will not be able to proceed further in the sale transaction and the very execution of the agreement of sale by the Defendant No.1 to 11 COM.O.S.1409/2024 4 is by suppressing the true material facts and by making false representations. This suppression of dispute of title over the schedule property by the Defendant No.1 to 4 and by executing the agreement of sale by misrepresentation had caused the Plaintiff huge financial loss and also the Plaintiff has lost its business opportunities by locking its rupees two crores with the Defendant No.1 to 4. which was paid to them as advance sale. Though the agreement of sale states that the Defendant No.1 to 4 are liable to refund the said 2 crores along with 20 lakhs as damages, it was only if the Defendant No.1 to 4 failed to get the bifurcated Khatha and required documents. But now the Defendant No.1 to 4 had executed the sale agreement by misrepresentation and even when the comprehensive suit regarding the title was pending consideration and hence the Defendant No.1 to 4 are liable to pay the interest at 18% from the date of agreement of sale till realization. With this back ground, the Defendant No.1 to 4 cannot execute the sale deed in 12 COM.O.S.1409/2024 respect of the Schedule Property as a suit regarding the title of land including the schedule property is pending consideration and as the Defendant No.1 to 4 had executed the sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff by false, misrepresentation and with an intention of cheating, the Defendant No.1 to 4 are liable to refund the said advance sale consideration so received by them along with 18% interest. The Plaintiff is also entitled to get the said interest amount as the Plaintiff had entered into the sale agreement of sale so as to full fill its business needs. The Defendants with an intention to cheat the Plaintiff, by suppressing the material fact had executed the Agreement of Sale in respect of the schedule property and had received Rs.2 crores from the Plaintiff. The cause of action for this suit arose on last week of May 2023 when the Plaintiff had received the notice dated 25.05.2023 and on subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Court. After complying Section 12A of the Act the plaintiff has filed the suit.
13 COM.O.S.1409/2024
3. Records reveal that, the defendants appeared through their respective counsels, the defendant No.4 filed written statement contending that the suit of the Plaintiff is totally misconceived, bereft of merits, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally suppressed several material and relevant facts. The Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and their illegal and high-handed conduct disentitle them from any relief at the hands of this Court. The averments made in para 1 to 4 are part and parcel of the record hence not disputing the same. All the contents mentioned in the plaint are false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. The Defendant No.4 at the outset, denies the various allegations made in the Plaint as false, frivolous, baseless and untenable and all the allegations made in the Plaint are hereby specifically denied. The complaint was filed with obvious malafide intentions and ulterior motives to enrich 14 COM.O.S.1409/2024 themselves illegally. The averment made in para 5 of the Plaint is totally false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. The plaintiff was the one who had approached the defendants to purchase the portion of the schedule property. The averment made in para 6 of the Plaint is totally false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. It is false to suggest that when the plaintiff visited the property and during the said discussion, the defendants had stated that they are the absolute owner of the land in Sy. No. 94 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is also false to state that the defendants stated that there is no dispute regarding the title or possession of the said property. The averment made in para 7, 8 & 9 of the Plaint are partially true. It is true to suggest that sale consideration was fixed at Rs.6,30,00,000/-, it is also true to suggest that a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was paid as an advance sale consideration and it is also true to suggest that a registered 15 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2021 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. But it is false to suggest that there were no lis-pendency and claims of any nature as the same was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The averments made in para 10, 11 & 12 of the Plaint are totally false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. It is false to suggest that the plaintiffs were ready to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered in its name as whenever the defendants called the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered in its name, the plaintiffs would state that they needed some time as they were arranging funds for the same. It is further submitted that the delay in executing the sale deed was on the part of the plaintiff and not on the part of the defendant. Further the averments and contents of paragraph No.12 is not within the knowledge of the defendant No.4. The averments made in para 13, 14 & 15 of the Plaint are totally false and baseless and the plaintiff be 16 COM.O.S.1409/2024 put to the strict proof of the same. The defendants had acquired the schedule property for a sum of Rs.7,48,00,000/- and were selling the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,30,00,000/- and by the difference amount it can be clearly seen that the said property which was to be sold by the defendants to the plaintiff is way less than that of the actual price bought for by the defendants. Thereby making it clear that the plaintiff already knew about the lispendence and claim and the investment made by the plaintiff by paying less sale consideration than that of the previous sale consideration was on the basis of the same. Further the legal notice issued by the plaintiff is not within the knowledge of the defendant No. 4. Further the averments in paragraph No. 15 are denied in toto. The averments made in para 16, 17 & 18 of the Plaint are totally false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. It is false to suggest that defendants suppressed the dispute over the title to the 17 COM.O.S.1409/2024 plaintiffs as the plaintiffs were also aware of the same and such being the situation the defendants agreed to sell the schedule property for less than what they had purchased it for. Further the defendants are not liable to pay any interest as the plaintiff is only trying to enrich themselves by suppressing facts. Further the plaintiff had invested in the said property knowing all the facts and circumstances of the same and they have shown it as the defendants had cheated them by misrepresentation and the same is totally false. Further the defendant No. 4 has received a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff which he is willing to return to the plaintiff provided that he is given some time to repay the same. The averments made in para 19, 20, 21 & 22 are denied as false in toto.
Further contend that, the plaintiffs were totally aware of the legality of the said property as the defendants had acquired the schedule property for a sum of Rs.7.48,00,000/- and were selling the same to the plaintiff 18 COM.O.S.1409/2024 for a sum of Rs.6.20.00.000/- and by the difference amount it can be clearly seen that the said property which was to be sold by the defendants to the plaintiff is way less than that of the actual price bought for by the defendants. The plaintiff was already aware of there being a dispute and that was the sole reason the plaintiff had agreed to buy the schedule property for less than what the defendants had bought it for. Further since the plaintiff were not able to arrange for funds, the plaintiff is stating the reason of suppression of there being dispute in the title of the property wherein the plaintiff was made aware of the same in the beginning and is currently claiming interest over the advance sale consideration which cannot be demanded while suppressing material facts. The defendant No.4 had received a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff when they paid advance sale consideration and the defendant No.4 is willing to return back the said sum of money provided no interest is charged against the same and 19 COM.O.S.1409/2024 provided he is given appropriate time to repay the same as the claims made by the plaintiff that they did not know anything about the dispute is totally false as the only reason the plaintiff has filed the said suit against the defendants as they were unable to arrange for the balance fund which was to be given to the defendants. Further the defendant No. 4 still denies that the plaintiff was unaware of dispute arising out of the property as the dispute was the sole reason that the defendants had accepted Rs.6,30,00,000/- as sale consideration and not more than Rs.7,48,00,000/- which was paid by the defendants from the previous owners. The Defendant denies all other allegations in the plaint not expressly traversed herein. It is prayed that this Court be pleased to dismiss the above suit and pass such other suitable orders. On these grounds pray for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed following:-
20 COM.O.S.1409/2024
I S S U ES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the advance amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff to defendants, under the registered sale agreement dated 17.11.2021 in view of the fact that at the time of entering into the sale agreement, the defendants had falsely represented to be the absolute owners of suit schedule property and suppressed the filing of O.S.No.1395/2021?
2. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that although the defendants had purchased the suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs.7,48,00,000/- the sale consideration fixed in the registered sale agreement with the plaintiff was only Rs.6,30,00,000/- in view of the fact that the plaintiff was well aware about the dispute in respect of suit schedule property and about pendency of O.S.No.1395/2021 ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove its case, the Partner of plaintiff firm filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence, examined 21 COM.O.S.1409/2024 himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant.
6. Heard the counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the material on record. No oral or written submission filed by the defendants till date.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 : In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 : In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.3 : In the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.4 : As per final order for
the following:-
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2:- I take these issues
together for my discussion as they are interrelated to each other and for the sake of convenience.
It is the case of the plaintiff firm as amended under Ex.P5 and registered under Ex.P6 that, the officials of the Defendant No.1 had approached the Plaintiff stating the Defendant No.1 and 4 are the owners of land measuring 22 COM.O.S.1409/2024 39.8 Guntas in Sy. No.94, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli. Bangalore South Taluk and had offered to sell a portion of the said land i.e. land measuring 12.08 Guntas in favour of the Plaintiff, accordingly the Plaintiff had visited the property and even had discussions with the Defendant No.1 to 4 regarding the purchase of the said portion of land in Sy. No.94 at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. During the said discussions, the Plaintiff had clearly state that they will be buying only the property with clear title and possession, to which Defendant No.1 to 4 had stated that the Defendant No.1 and 4 are the absolute owners of the land in Sy. No.94 of Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 39.8 Guntas in Sy. No.94, situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and there is no dispute regarding title or possession of the land. Based on the assurance and inducement of the Defendant No.1 and 4, the Plaintiff had agreed to purchase the suit 23 COM.O.S.1409/2024 property and after the discussions the total sale consideration in respect of the schedule property was fixed at Rs.6,30,00,000/- (Rupees six crores thirty lakhs only). Accordingly, an agreement for sale was executed on 17.11.2021 by the Defendant No.1 to 4 where in which the Defendant No.1 to 4 had agreed to sell the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff and even the said agreement of sale was registered in the office of Sub- registrar, Jayanagar (Bommanahalli), Bangalore as Document No. BMH-1-05733-2021-22 of Book No.1, stored in CD No. BMHD1514. As per the agreed terms the Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.2 crores as advance sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 and 4. This being the fact the Plaintiff received a notice from M/s. PR & PR Associates, Advocates on behalf of their clients namely, Smt.Ananda Devi Agarwal, W/o Late Sri.Kirorimal Singhal @ Agarwal, Sri.Shivakumar Singhal, S/o Late Sri.Kironmal Singhal @ Agarwal, Smt.Krishna Devi Agarwal, W/o. Sri. 24 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Shivakumar Singhal Agarwal, Sri.Vikas Kumar Singhal, S/o Sri.Shivakumar Singhal Agarwal, where in which it was claimed that the seller of the Defendant No.1 and 4 i.e. Mr.Jayarama Reddy had already sold the entire land in Sy. No.94 in favour of Sri.Kirorimal Singhal @ Agarwal vide a registered Deed dated 14.04.1994 and their clients are in peaceful possession over the land in Sy.No.94 etc. Even it was informed that a suit seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction in O.S.No.1395/2021 is being filed same is pending before the City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore etc, then plaintiff got issued notice to the defendants, but there was no response, therefore after complying the pre institution mediation process plaintiff has filed the suit.
9. Per contra, it is the case of the defendant as contended in the written statement that, plaintiffs were totally aware of the legality of the said property as the defendants had acquired the schedule property for a sum of 25 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Rs.7.48,00,000/- and were selling the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6.20.00.000/- and by the difference amount it can be clearly seen that the said property which was to be sold by the defendants to the plaintiff is way less than that of the actual price bought for by the defendants. The plaintiff was already aware of there being a dispute and that was the sole reason the plaintiff had agreed to buy the schedule property for less than what the defendants had bought it for. Further since the plaintiff were not able to arrange for funds, the plaintiff is stating the reason of suppression of there being dispute in the title of the property wherein the plaintiff was made aware of the same in the beginning and is currently claiming interest over the advance sale consideration which cannot be demanded while suppressing material facts. The defendant No.4 had received a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff when they paid advance sale consideration and the defendant No.4 is willing to return back the said sum of money 26 COM.O.S.1409/2024 provided no interest is charged against the same and provided he is given appropriate time to repay the same as the claims made by the plaintiff that they did not know anything about the dispute is totally false as the only reason the plaintiff has filed the said suit against the defendants as they were unable to arrange for the balance fund which was to be given to the defendants.
10. In order to prove its case, the Partner of the plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating averments of the plaint as referred in para 8 supra, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The evidence of PW.1 was subjected to cross examination by the counsel for defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 and remained unchallenged by the defendant No.3. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants. In this regard the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued and prayed for decreeing the suit. No oral or written submission filed by the defendants. 27 COM.O.S.1409/2024
11. However, it is settled that according to Section 101 of Evidence Act- burden lies on the plaintiff to prove its case on basis of material available, as such plaintiff cannot rely on weakness or absence of defense of defendant to discharge the onus.
12. On careful perusal of pleadings and documentary evidence available on record we can find that so far as in respect of execution of registered agreement of sale dated 17.11.2021 for the portion of land measuring 12 ½ Gunthas in the land bearing Sy. No.94 situated at Arakere village under Ex.P2 by the defendants is concerned is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that parties to the agreement also agreed for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,30,00,000/-. Though the defendant No.4 would contend that he has received only Rs.1,00,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and ready to refund the same, but Ex.P2 reflects payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/-by online transfer agreeing to pay balance consideration of 28 COM.O.S.1409/2024 Rs.4,30,00,000/- at the time of execution of regular sale deed subject to compliance of remaining terms of thby agreement. In this regard nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to disbelieve the version of plaintiff towards payment of advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/-to the defendants. No oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the defendants is forthcoming to believe that they received only Rs.1,00,00,000/-, therefore contention of the defendants on this aspect cannot be accepted. So now its clear that plaintiff firm has proved execution of the Ex.P2 agreement for sale and payment of advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in accordance with law.
13. With regard to suppression of facts in respect of previous sale transaction as well as lis- pendency is concerned in the cross examination of PW.1 when a suggestion was put the witness that since the plaintiff firm was aware about the previous litigation and for that reason 29 COM.O.S.1409/2024 did not verify the records, he denied as false. In this regard if we go through the terms of Ex.P 2 registered agreement for sale it reflects that defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the schedule property free from all kind of encumbrances including lis-pendence thereby assured the plaintiff to proceed with the proposed sale transaction. That apart, as could be seen from the records that despite issuance of legal notice under Ex.P3 sent to the admitted address of the defendants it returned unserved with an endorsement as insufficient address and not known. Further, Ex.P4 PIM reveals that though notice was sent to the last known address of the defendants, but they did not turn up and remained absent, which indicates that the defendants themselves evaded the process. As such contention of the defendants on this aspect also cannot be believed.
14. It is pertinent to note here that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires that the party seeking 30 COM.O.S.1409/2024 the relief of specific performance is not only to plead, but is also required to prove that, he is always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract till execution of sale deed. It is also equally settled that the conduct of the defendants cannot be ignored by weighing the question of exercise of discretion for decreeing or denying a decree for specific performance. The defendants have failed to comply terms mentioned on page 5 to 7 of the of the agreement within the stipulated period of three months. No notice has been issued to forfeit the advance amount by terminating the agreement. In such circumstances conduct of both the parties and surrounding circumstances has to be examined by this court. So in the light of these requirements it is necessary to see that whether the plaintiff has shown its readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract.
15. With regard to ready and willingness is concerned, though there is no specific issue was being framed by the predecessor in office but in para 10 of the plaint it has 31 COM.O.S.1409/2024 been averred as to after execution of agreement for sale the plaintiff firm from time to time have been insisting the defendants to complete the sale process and ready to perform its part of contract by paying balance consideration amount, but defendants did not come forward to perform their part of obligation even after compliance of section 12A of the Act, on the other hand plaintiff on receipt of notice from earlier purchasers came to know about previous sale transaction, thereby confirmed about defective title of the defendants over schedule property, therefore plaintiff has approached this court for recovery of advance amount with interest. This material evidence of the PW.1 remains unrebutted.
16. In this regard PW.1 states that, since from the date of agreement firm is ready and willing to perform their part of contract with balance amount. As could be seen from the perusal of Ex.P2 agreement of sale as referred supra that there is a clause in the agreement fixing three 32 COM.O.S.1409/2024 months period for execution and completion of sale transaction, which indicates that time was the essence of contract.
17. A plain reading of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act makes it clear that, when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract.
18. So, though it is settled that, in case of immovable property it is not necessary, but it is equally settled that it is open to one of the parties to make the time of contract by calling upon the other party which has been guilty of unreasonable delay to perform the contract as has been exercised by the plaintiff in the case at hand. In this regard 33 COM.O.S.1409/2024 there is no dispute that both the parties should perform their part of contract within the stipulated period, then time is the essence of contract and parties shall adhere the same.
19. In the case at hand there is an averment regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform its part of contract and also PW.1 states that defendants themselves evaded, this material evidence has also not been seriously challenged by the defendants. In order to support its oral testimony the plaintiff has produced EX.P3 to show that it made efforts to perform part of contract by issuing legal notice within the stipulated period of three years from the date of agreement which is in consonance with the terms of the agreement of sale dated 17.11.2021. On the other defendants failed substantiate their defence by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court. For these reasons agreements advanced by the learned counsel for the 34 COM.O.S.1409/2024 plaintiff holds good. Without there being rebuttal evidence contention of the defendants cannot be accepted and an adverse inference can validly drawn against them. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
20. ISSUE NO.3:- It is to be noticed that admittedly the plaintiff has not claimed specific performance of contract. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I have to hold that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount, therefore the plaintiff firm is entitle to get back the earnest money of Rs.2,00,00,000/- paid under the agreement of sale dated 17.11.2021 from the defendants. Consequently the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed with cost. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 is in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.4:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
35 COM.O.S.1409/2024
ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendants are hereby directed to
refund the earnest money of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore
Only) with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of agreement 17.11.2021 till its realization to the plaintiff within three months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law.
Draw decree accordingly.
The copy of this Judgment shall be made available to both the applicants through electronic mail or otherwise as required under provisions of Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(Typed by me on Dell Laptop provided to PO, corrected, transferred to official system, taken print out, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on 23rd day of March 2026) (C.D.KAROSHI) C/C LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU (CCH-84) 36 COM.O.S.1409/2024 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
PW-1 Prasun.P.Raipat LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
Digital certified copy of Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021- Ex.P.1 Page 1 to 49 Digital certified copy of Sale Agreement dated Ex.P.2 17.11.2021-Page 50 to 64 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.06.2023 along with Ex.P.3 3 RPAD Receipts and 3 Returned Postal Envelopes-Page 65 to 72 Ex.P.4 Non-Starter Report of PIM-Page 73 Ex.P.5 Original Amendment of Partnership Deed-Page 80 to 85 Original Certificate of Registration of Plaintiff Ex.P.6 Partnership Firm.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND LIST OF
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
(C.D.KAROSHI)
C/C LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVELY DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU (CCH-84)