Bangalore District Court
Shashi Andrews vs Nitish Raghunath Shetty on 13 February, 2025
KABC010049592024
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025.
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1413/2024
Plaintiffs: 1) Smt.Shashi Andrews
w/o Sri Josephat Andrews
Aged about 56 years
2) Sri Joshil Andrews
s/o Sri Josephat Andrews
Aged about 34 years
Both are r/at Flat No.502
5th Floor, Atrium Heights No.18
10th Main, Prashanthi Nagar
ISRO Layout, Bengaluru-560 111.
(By Sri S.R. Muralidhar, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendant: Sri Nitish Raghunath Shetty
s/o Late Raghunath
major in age
r/at No.206, Royal Residency
5th Cross, 4th Stage
BTM Layout, Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Sri M.J. Alva, Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit 22.02.2024
Nature of the suit For specific performance of
contract
2 O.S.No.1413/2024
Date of the commencement 16.12.2024
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 13.02.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
00 11 21
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the specific performance of the sale agreement dated 05.05.2023 executed in respect of the suit schedule property by the defendant.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as hereunder:-
The plaintiffs have entered into a registered sale agreement with the defendant on 05.05.2023, first rectification deed dated 27.10.2023, second rectification deed dated 02.11.2023 in respect of the suit schedule property measuring east-west 43 feet on northern side and 40 feet on southern side and north-south 122 feet on eastern side and 131 feet on western side for a total consideration amount of ₹1,90,00,000/- by paying the advance sale consideration of Rs.75,09,000/-. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The time for the completion of contract was three months 3 O.S.No.1413/2024 from the date of the sale agreement subject to availability of all the required documents. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they were rigorously persuading the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant protracted in the guise of pendency of Writ Appeal No.723/2022, which was suppressed by the defendant at the time of execution of the sale agreement. Later the defendant started to force the plaintiffs to cancel the agreement on the ground that the plaintiffs have not paid the balance consideration amount. But, the plaintiffs were ready and willing to complete the contract subject to adjudication of W.A.No.723/2022. Further, the defendant has undertaken to clear the loan availed by him from Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs approached for financial assistance the bank has refused to lend loan due to pendency of W.A.No.723/2022. Subsequently, defendant has issued a notice for the cancellation of the sale agreement dated 23.11.2023 and for which the plaintiffs have replied on 04.12.2023 and again the defendant has sent a rejoinder on 12.12.2023. The cause of action arose when the defendant has denied for furnishing the required documents and therefore, sought the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement.4 O.S.No.1413/2024
3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, the defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. The defendant has admitted the execution of the sale agreement dated 05.05.2023, rectification deeds, agreed consideration amount of ₹1,90,00,000/- and receipt of advance sale consideration amount of Rs.75,09,000/-. It is contended by the defendant that as per Clause-2 vide para No.7 of the agreement, three months time was fixed for the performance of the agreement and the time was the essence of the agreement. It is contended that the time so fixed was expired on 05.08.2023 and even after lapse of more than a year, the plaintiffs do not have funds and they were depending upon the bank loan which was refused and therefore they were not ready with funds for the performance of the sale agreement. It is contended that for the failure of the plaintiffs, the defendant demanded the cancellation of the sale agreement by receiving back the advance sale consideration paid to him and therefore, he had issued a notice which is replied by the plaintiffs and again a rejoinder was also sent. He has pleaded that he has filed O.S.No.881/2024 on 02.02.2024 seeking declaratory relief in respect of the agreement of sale dated 05.05.2023 and after noticing the suit filed by the defendant as a counterblast, the plaintiffs have filed this suit subsequently on 22.02.2024. It is specifically pleaded that the 5 O.S.No.1413/2024 plaintiffs have absolutely no funds to pay the balance consideration amount ₹1,15,83,000/- and pendency of Writ Appeal No.723/2022 has no relevancy to the present suit and neither the plaintiffs nor defendant are not parties in the said suit.
In so far as loan borrowed from Punjab National Bank, BTM layout branch is concerned, he has taken up a contention that he had cleared those loans and received the original documents long back and knowing fully the same, the plaintiffs have taken up a false contention about pendency of the loan. It is further contended that immediately on appearance of the defendant pursuant to the application filed by him, this court passed an order dated 20.06.2024, directing the plaintiffs to deposit the balance consideration amount of ₹1,15,83,000/- within 30 days, which is not complied by the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their readiness and willingness and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of obligation in the sale agreement dated 05.05.2023?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 6 O.S.No.1413/2024
05.05.2023 and rectification deeds dated 26.10.2023 and 02.11.2023?
3) What order or decree?
5. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff himself is examined as P.W1 and produced Ex.P1 to 17 documents. P.W.1 is subjected to cross-examination. The defendant has not chosen to lead evidence.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Findings of this Court on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the negative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for the specific performance of the sale agreement dated 05.05.2023 in which the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for a total consideration amount of ₹1,90,00,000/- by receiving the advance sale consideration amount of ₹75,09,000/-. Subsequent to the execution of the sale agreement dated 05.05.2023 two rectification deeds dated 27.10.2023 and 02.11.2023 were also executed which are not in dispute. The defendant has admitted the execution of the sale agreement, agreed amount of consideration and receipt of 7 O.S.No.1413/2024 advance sale consideration amount of ₹75 09,000/-. But, the only defence of the defendant is that the plaintiffs were not ready with the balance consideration amount and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. It is the further case of the defendant that the time limit fixed for the execution of the sale deed was three months from 05.05.2023 and time was essence of the contract. He has also contended that inspite of lapse of one year the plaintiffs have failed to tender the balance consideration amount and get the sale deed and therefore he has issued a notice dated 23.11.2023 for which the plaintiffs have sent untenable reply and therefore he has instituted O.S.No.881/2024 dated 02.02.2024 and noticing the same and thereafter as a counterblast the plaintiffs have instituted this suit on 22.02.2024 without having sufficient funds to pay the balance consideration amount and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is not in dispute that the time limit fixed for the execution of the sale deed was three months from 05.05.2023. But, subsequently two rectification deeds were executed on 27.10.2023 and 02.11.2023. Still, even after execution of the rectification deeds, the time limit for execution of the sale deed was not extended. Therefore, even if the period of three months calculated from the second rectification deed dated 02.11.2023, the sale deed should have been executed on 02.02.2024. But, 8 O.S.No.1413/2024 the sale deed could not be executed and therefore the defendant himself caused notice to the plaintiffs on 23.11.2023 and later filed a suit in O.S.No.881/2024 and 02.02.2024, seeking the relief of cancellation of the agreement of sale dated 05.05.2023 and thereafter the plaintiffs have instituted this suit on 22.02.2024.
10. It is relevant to point out that after the execution of the sale agreement and rectification deeds initially the defendant has issued a notice dated 23.11.2023 to the plaintiffs as per Ex.P5 wherein he has specifically stated that though the time was the essence of the contract and the period of three months stipulated in the agreement has expired after 04.08.2023, the plaintiffs have failed to pay the balance consideration amount and as per the terms of the agreement after forfeiting the sum of ₹2.5 lakhs in the advance sale consideration amount, he is ready to refund a sum of ₹72,59,000/- and called up on the plaintiffs to execute a registered cancellation deed for the agreement dated 05.05.2023. In this regard, the specific recital of Ex.P5 notice issued by the defendant in para No.3 is extracted for ready reference:-
"It is needless to inform you that as per the terms of the registered contract of sale dated 05.05.2023, time is the essence of the agreement vide Clause-2 thereof. The said stipulated period of three months had expired on 04.08.2023. Now the period of more than six months have already 9 O.S.No.1413/2024 been elapsed. Our client had given you sufficient time and opportunity to fulfill your obligations under the contract of sale. But, you have to comply the preconditions of agreement of sale. Clause-8 of the agreement provides the default clause of forfeiture of the sum of ₹2.5 lakhs out of the advance amount received by him and accordingly our client is ready and willing to refund you the sum of ₹72,59,000/- against the execution of the registered cancellation deed of agreement of sale dated 05.05.2023 before the Sub Registrar, Jayanagar (J.P. Nagar), Bengaluru".
11. Subsequently, the defendant himself has instituted a suit against the plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale agreement in O.S.No.881/2024 on 02.02.2024. Later, in this suit, the defendant entered appearance before the court on 05.03.2024 by filing I.A.No.3 under Section 151 CPC. At the time of appearance of the defendant, in I.A.No.3, the defendant has again offered and submitted that he is ready and willing to execute the sale deed provided the plaintiffs are ready to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,15,83,000/- without seeking escalation of sale price. In this regard, it is relevant to reproduce the affidavit filed by the defendant along with I.A.No.3 dated 29.02.2024, which read as hereunder:-
"I submit that in para-7 & 8 of the plaint, it is contended by the plaintiffs that they are ready and 10 O.S.No.1413/2024 willing to perform their part of contract by making the payment of the balance sale consideration amount of ₹1,15,83,000/- to me for getting the sale deed duly executed and registered in their favour against the delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Without prejudice to the right of the defence and various contentions taken in the notices dated 23.11.2023 and 12.12.2023 and maintaining the defence and only with a view to put an end to the litigation instead of blowing up the same on the backdrop of offer of readiness and willingness of plaintiffs for making payment of the balance sale consideration amount and price of ₹1,15,83,000.- to me, I am ready and willing to execute the sale deed immediately without seeking escalation of sale price with the passage of time and the increase in the land value. Accordingly, I have filed the accompanying application for consideration of this Hon'ble court".
12. In addition to above offer made by the defendant to the plaintiffs agreeing to execute the sale deed, he has also filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC to direct the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of ₹1,15,83,000/-. After hearing the parties in the order dated 05.06.2024, this court has specifically reiterated the stand taken by the defendant in I.A.No.2 wherein the defendant even on 05.06.2024 submitted before the court that 11 O.S.No.1413/2024 he is ready to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property immediately and withdraw O.S.No.881/2024 filed by him provided the plaintiffs are ready to deposit the balance consideration amount of ₹1,15,83,000/-. Subsequently this court after hearing the parties in the order dated 20.06.2024 passed orders on IA No.2 filed by the defendant and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance consideration amount of ₹1,15,83,000/- within 30 days. The plaintiffs have not complied the order passed by this court on 20.06.2024. Subsequently, on 23.07.2024, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.4 for extension of time to comply the order dated 20.06.2024. But, inspite of lapse of 30 days, they have not deposited the balance consideration amount. It is noticed that the plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by this court dated 20.06.2024 before the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No.23428/2024 which later came to be withdrawn. Therefore, it is clear that there were no sufficient funds with the plaintiffs to pay the balance consideration amount and inspite of the order passed by this court for depositing the balance consideration amount on 20.06.2024 even after more than seven months, the plaintiffs have failed to deposit the balance consideration amount.
13. The first contention raised by the plaintiffs is that there was a mortgage of the suit schedule property by the defendant 12 O.S.No.1413/2024 and the discharge deed is not produced. But, the defendant has contended that the loan was cleared and mortgage is already discharged. Neither the plaintiffs have produced the documents to show that the suit schedule properties are still under mortgage nor the defendant has produced document to show that the mortgage is discharged. Even if it is considered that the properties under mortgage, it will not absolve the liability of the plaintiffs to show that they are ready with the funds throughout to pay the balance consideration amount. This is not done. If the suit schedule property is still under mortgage and the defendant had suppressed the mortgage, specific performance cannot be ordered for non-discharge of mortgage. Even otherwise in such a situation, the remedy of the plaintiffs to seek for compensation or damages for the breach of contract, which is not claimed by the plaintiffs. At any rate, this cannot be a defence to the plaintiffs to overcome their inability to arrange sufficient funds to pay the balance consideration amount.
14. The other contention raised by the plaintiffs is that Writ Appeal No.723/2022 is pending before the court and therefore the bankers have refused to sanction loan and it was the responsibility of the defendant to see that the W.A.No.723/2022 is disposed. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant is not a party in the said writ appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the 13 O.S.No.1413/2024 plaintiffs has contended that the layout association was a party and the defendant is a member of the Association. But there is no material to show that the defendant is a member to the association and when the layout association is made as a party in the writ appeal, it shall be deemed that the defendant is also a party. Therefore, when the defendant is not a party to the writ appeal, the plaintiffs cannot absolve from their liability to arrange sufficient funds for the payment of balance consideration and it cannot be in an exemption or exemption to the plaintiffs to prove the readiness and willingness. Again, if the defendant has suppressed the pendency of writ appeal, or defect in the title the only remedy to the plaintiffs is to seek appropriate relief for damages or otherwise and it is not a ground to exempt the plaintiffs to prove their readiness and willingness.
"Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads as hereunder:-
"16. Personal bars to relief.--Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--
(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under Section 20 or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or 14 O.S.No.1413/2024
(c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. --For the purposes of clause (c), --
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
(underlying by me) Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars the relief of specific performance of a contract in favour of a person, who fails to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. In view of Explanation (i) to clause (c) of Section 16, it may not be essential for the plaintiff to actually tender money to the defendant or to deposit money in Court. But when the Court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance consideration amount, the plaintiffs must deposit the balance consideration amount.
Explanation (ii) of Section 16 says that the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction. The obligation of the plaintiffs to establish readiness and willingness is compulsory and when the Court directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance consideration amount, failure of the plaintiffs to 15 O.S.No.1413/2024 deposit the balance consideration amount itself is a clear reflection of want of readiness on the part of the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed in their favour. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) through Lrs v/s A.M. Krishnamurthy (2023)11 SCC 775 the Hon'ble Supreme Court by reiterating its earlier decisions stressed the importance of readiness in the following words:-
"To aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform an obligation to pay money, in terms of a contract, the plaintiff would have to make specific statements in the plaint and adduce evidence to show availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. In other words, the plaintiff would have to plead that the plaintiff had sufficient funds or was in a position to raise funds in time to discharge his obligation under the contract. If the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds with him to discharge his obligations in terms of a contract, which requires payment of money, the plaintiff would have to specifically plead how the funds would be available to him. To cite an example, the plaintiff may aver and prove, by adducing evidence, an arrangement with a financier for disbursement of adequate funds for timely compliance with the terms and conditions of a contract involving payment of money.
In Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha1, this Court held that:16 O.S.No.1413/2024
......Therefore, even assuming that the defendant had committed breach, if the plaintiff fails to aver in the plaint or prove that he was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract which are required to be performed by him (other than the terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the plaintiff), there is a bar to specific performance in his favour. Therefore, the assumption of the respondent that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is something which need not be proved, if the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant refused to execute the sale deed and thereby committed breach, is not correct. Let us give an example. Take a case where there is a contract for sale for a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs and earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh was paid and the vendor wrongly refuses to execute the sale deed unless the purchaser is ready to pay Rs. 15 lakhs. In such a case there is a clear breach by the defendant. But in that case, if the plaintiff did not have the balance Rs. 9 lakhs (and the money required for stamp duty and registration) or the capacity to arrange and pay such money, when the contract had to be performed, the plaintiff will not be entitled to specific performance, even if he proves breach by the defendant, as he was not "ready and willing" to perform his obligations." .......
The Respondent Plaintiff has relied upon the notice dated 13.02.2003 and evidences of PW2 & PW3 to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Even though it may be true that the Respondent Plaintiff had deposited the balance sale consideration in court on 06.04.2010, it cannot be ignored that such deposit was made by him seven years after 15.3.2003, being the date by which the sale had to be concluded. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff as to how the Respondent Plaintiff was in a position to pay or make arrangements for payment of the balance sale 17 O.S.No.1413/2024 consideration within time. The Courts below also erred in not adjudicating upon this vital issue except to make a sweeping observation that, given that the Respondent Plaintiff was a businessman he had sources to arrange the balance funds. ......
It is settled law that for relief of specific performance, the Plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice.
In this case, the Respondent Plaintiff has failed to discharge his duty to prove his readiness as well as willingness to perform his part of the contract, by adducing cogent evidence. Acceptable evidence has not been placed on record to prove his readiness and willingness. Further, it is clear from the Respondent Plaintiff's balance sheet that he did not have sufficient funds to discharge his part of contract in March 2003. Making subsequent deposit of balance consideration after lapse of seven years would not establish the Respondent Plaintiff's readiness to discharge his part of contract. Reliance may be placed on Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (supra) where this Court speaking through Justice 18 O.S.No.1413/2024 SB Sinha held that deposit of amount in court is not enough to arrive at conclusion that Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Deposit in court would not establish Plaintiff's readiness and willingness within meaning of section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below: -
"45. ...Deposit of any amount in the court at the appellate stage by the plaintiffs by itself would not establish their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract within the meaning of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act..."
It is, therefore, patently clear that the Respondent Plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness to perform his part of contract from the date of execution of the agreement till date of decree, which is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance. This Court finds that the Respondent Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
The Respondent Plaintiff may have been willing to perform his part of contract. It however appears that he was not ready with funds. He was possibly trying to buy time to discharge his part of contract".
15. It is true that in the present suit the sale agreement is of the year 2023 and therefore by virtue of the amendment brought to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, in the 19 O.S.No.1413/2024 year 2018 the plaintiffs need not plead readiness and willingness. But, the plaintiffs must prove that they are always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Though Explanation-1 to Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act 1963 provides that very contract involves the payment of money. It is not essential for the plaintiffs to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money, it further provides that the plaintiffs are required to deposit the money if directed by the court. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above has held that belated deposit of the balance consideration amount also not sufficient to establish the readiness. Therefore, in order to prove the readiness the plaintiffs are mandatorily required to show that they were ready with funds within the stipulated time fixed for the performance of the contract. In the present case though this court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance consideration amount, it has not deposited the amount even till today. It is not in dispute that the time was the essence of the contract. Still the balance consideration amount is not paid as agreed in the agreement. Needless to reiterate that if the plaintiffs were unable to arrange the balance consideration amount, they cannot sue for specific performance of the contract. They cannot take up a contention that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The plaintiffs may be willing to 20 O.S.No.1413/2024 perform their part of contract. Readiness is the financial capacity of the plaintiffs to pay the balance consideration amount and willingness is their mental preparation. Even if it is considered that the plaintiffs were mentally prepared to get the sale deed executed in their favour, they have failed to prove the readiness. When they were not ready to pay the balance consideration amount or they were unable to pay the balance consideration amount, their suit for specific performance is not maintainable.
16. As stated above, the plaintiffs have taken up a contention that the defendant has suppressed some facts and committed breach of contract. If the defendant has suppressed the facts or committed breach of contract, the remedy should have been to the plaintiffs is either under Section 21 or 22 of Specific Relief Act to seek compensation and damages for the breach of contract or for refund of earnest money. This is not done. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that even if the defendant has committed breach of contract unless the plaintiffs are able to show their readiness to pay the balance consideration amount, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiffs by filing a suit for specific performance cannot blame the defendant for the non-performance or inability to execute the sale deed. If the plaintiffs were disabled to get the loan for whatsoever 21 O.S.No.1413/2024 reason, they cannot claim the relief for specific performance of the sale agreement and the relief should have been otherwise. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration amount to the defendant. Consequently, issue No.1 is answered in negative.
17. Issue No.2 & 3: In view of the answer given to above issue in the negative, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement. In the notice initially issued by the defendant, he has even offered to refund the earnest money. But still the plaintiffs have not even sought alternative relief for the refund of earnest money. If there is no specific prayer for refund of earnest money, Court cannot grant such relief in view of the bar under Section 22(2) of Specific Relief Act 1963. If the plaintiffs have sought such alternative relief, the court would have considered this aspect. Therefore, question of directing the defendant for refund of earnest money also does not arise. Hence, the entire suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is pssed.
ORDER Suit is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Judgment prepared through Speech to Text App with the assistance of Senior Sheristedar, carried out corrections, 22 O.S.No.1413/2024 print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2025) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Mr.Joshil Andrews List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Sale agreement dtd.05.05.2023 Ex.P2 Shara dtd.16.08.2023 Ex.P3 Rectification deed dtd.26.10.2023 Ex.P4 Rectification deed dtd.02.11.2023 Ex.P5 Copy of notice dtd.23.11.2023 Ex.P6 Reply notice Ex.P7 Rejoinder of the defendant Ex.P8 Pass book Ex.P9 to E-mail communications P14 Ex.P15 Whatsapp conversations totally 9 pages Ex.P16 Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P17 Pen-drive
List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
Nil List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Nil Digitally
signed by
VIJAYA VIJAYA
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
KUMAR RAI B
KUMAR
Bangalore.
Date:
RAI B 2025.02.15
10:50:00
+0530