Bangalore District Court
Sathyalakshmi vs Sheshadri H S on 1 September, 2025
KABC010083682013
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
O.S. No.6590/2013
Plaintiff:- Smt. Sathyalakshmi,
W/o. P.N.Shridhara Bhattaru,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple,
2nd Main Road, West Pipeline,
Kasturabhanagara, Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
(By Adv. Sri. M.M.A.)
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. Sri. H.S.Sheshadri,
S/o. Sri. Subbaramaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
2 O.S. No.6590/2013
Dead by LR: Defendant No.2
2. Smt. T.N.Sudha,
W/o. H.S.Sheshadri,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.71, "C" Cross,
5th Main Road,
Byatarayanapura New Layout,
Mysore Road, Bangalore -26.
And also residing
At No.26, Ground Floor,
Ramamaiah Reddy Layout,
12th Cross, Dodanekundi,
Marathalli, Bangalore - 560 037.
2. Mr. T.N.Ravi,
S/o. Late T.Naghabhushan Rao,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.26, Ground Floor,
Ramamaiah Reddy Layout,
12th Cross, Dodanekundi,
Marathalli, Bangalore - 560 037.
(D1 - Dead (Rep. by D2)
D2 by Adv. Sri. H.K.S.
D3 by Adv. Sri. S.P.
Date of institution of the suit : 06.09.2013
Nature of the suit : Specific Performance
Date of commencement of : 18.01.2023
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 01.09.2025
was pronounced
3 O.S. No.6590/2013
Total Duration : Years Months Days
11 11 25
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.07.2011 in respect of the suit schedule property, cancellation of registered Gift Deed dated 07.11.2012 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, possession of the suit schedule property and alternative reliefs including execution of the sale deed by the Court Officer and costs.
2. The suit schedule property is described as the ground floor portion of House Property bearing Khatha No.559/A, No.26, Doddanekundi, 12th Cross, Ramaiah Reddy Layout, Marathahalli, Bengaluru - 560037, measuring 700 sq. ft. of super built-up area, bounded on:
East by : 16 feet Road;
4 O.S. No.6590/2013
West by : Private Property;
North by : Site No.24 and
South by : Site No.28.
3. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows: -
The plaintiff avers that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, acquired through the registered Partition Deed dated 17.11.2011. The khatha and encumbrance remained in the name of defendant No.2. The defendants No.1 and 2, husband and wife allegedly offered to sell the suit schedule property for ₹15,00,000/- due to pending partition suit in O.S.No.1452/2011 filed by defendant No.2 against her mother and brothers. An agreement of sale dated 10.07.2011 was executed, with ₹5,00,000/- paid as advance.
The balance ₹10,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration. The plaintiff claims readiness and willingness, issuance of legal notice dated 02.07.2013 and refusal by defendants. The Gift Deed to defendant No.3 is alleged to be fraudulent to cheat the plaintiff. The cause of action arose on 10.07.2011, 17.11.2011, 02.07.2013 and 23.08.2013.
4. The brief averments of written statement of defendants No.1 and 2 is as follows:-
5 O.S. No.6590/2013
The defendants deny the plaint averments as false. The defendant No.2 was not the absolute owner on 10.07.2011; the Partition Deed was executed later on 17.11.2011. The suit schedule property was joint family property involving defendant No.2's mother - Smt.T.Rathnamma, brother - T.N.Suresh Kumar and others. No advance of ₹5,00,000/- was received; signatures were obtained by misrepresentation for khatha transfer. The agreement is fraudulent, notarized by deceased notary, lacks concurrence of co-owners and violates Sections 44 and 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, plaintiff knew of defective title. The defendant No.2 gifted the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 on 07.11.2012, who sold it to Shri.Shivaram S.J. on 22.01.2018. The suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties i.e., co-sharers, son of defendant No.2 - Ajay H.S. and subsequent purchaser. No cause of action; suit barred by Order II Rule 3 of CPC. The plaintiff not ready and willing; no stamp duty paid on agreement as ordered. O.S.No.1452/2011 was dismissed on 12.02.2021. On these grounds, prays to dismissal of suit.
6 O.S. No.6590/2013
5. The brief averments of written statement of defendant No.3 is as follows:-
All allegations in the plaint are false and the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant No.3 was not a party to the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 10.07.2011 and has no knowledge of it, the advance payment of ₹5,00,000/-, legal notice dated 02.07.2013 or any refusal by defendants No.1 and
2.
5(a). The defendant No.2 was not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as on 10.07.2011; she acquired title only through the Partition Deed dated 17.11.2011. On the agreement date, the suit schedule property was joint family property belonging to defendant No.2, defendant No.3, their brother - T.N.Suresh Kumar and mother - Smt.T.V.Rathnamma. The defendant No.2 had imperfect title and the agreement violates Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act as it lacks concurrence of co-owners.
5(b). The defendant No.2 executed the valid registered Gift Deed dated 07.11.2012 in favour of defendant No.3, which remains unchallenged and undisturbed. This renders the 7 O.S. No.6590/2013 Agreement of Sale infructuous. The defendant No.3 further sold the suit schedule property to Shri.Shivaram S.J. through the registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.2018. The plaintiff has not sought cancellation of Gift Deed or impleaded the subsequent purchaser.
5(c). The suit is bad for non-joinder under Order I Rule 10 CPC, as co-owners including minor son - Ajay H.S. of defendant No.2, who has coparcenary interest, legal heirs of late T.N.Nagabhusan Rao and subsequent purchaser Shivaram S.J. are not impleaded. No effective decree can be passed without them.
5(d). The suit improperly unites distinct causes of action i.e., advance payment on 05.11.2011, Agreement on 10.07.2011, Partition Deed on 17.11.2011, Gift Deed on 07.11.2012, legal notice on 02.07.2013, dismissal of O.S.No.1452/2011 on 12.02.2021, violating Order II Rule 3 CPC. No single cause of action exists against defendant No.3.
5(e). The plaintiff knew of pending partition suit in O.S.No.1452/2011, making the agreement hit by lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff 8 O.S. No.6590/2013 entered into the agreement with full knowledge of defective title and there is no implied warranty.
5(f). The defendant No.3 alleges joint fraud by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 against defendant No.3. The pleadings of plaintiff are inconsistent i.e., conflicting dates for cause of action start, premature, disharmonious and an abuse of process to harass/ blackmail. The agreement is based on misrepresentation of exclusive title.
5(g). No relief is sought against defendant No.3 i.e., no prayer for cancellation of Gift Deed. The suit is not maintainable against him, as his title through the Gift Deed is superior and post-dates the agreement. Specific performance is discretionary and inequitable here, causing irreparable loss to defendant No.3.
5(h). The defendants No.1 and 2 had no possession on 10.07.2011; defendant No.2's share was unquantified. Post-Gift Deed, defendant No.2 has no title to perform the contract. The plaintiff may at best seek refund of advance if proved but not specific performance. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of suit against defendant No.3 with exemplary costs. 9 O.S. No.6590/2013
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessors-in-office have framed the following issues and additional issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff for ₹15,00,000/- and received ₹5,00,000/- advance amount and executed agreement of sale on 10.07.2011?
2. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief claimed?
5. What decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether defendant No.3 proves that defendant No.1 an 2 had no exclusive right to execute any agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property as contended in the written statement?
2. Whether defendant No.3 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Registered Gift Deed dated 07.11.2012 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on plaintiff?
10 O.S. No.6590/2013
7. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were marked through her and closed her side. The defendant No.3 has entered into the witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D.1 was marked through him.
8. The plaintiff and defendants have not addressed their arguments.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the negative.
Addl Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Addl Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Addl Issue No.3: In the negative.
Issue No.5: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff must prove the valid, enforceable contract under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The alleged agreement dated 10.07.2011 predates the Partition Deed dated 17.11.2011 - Ex.P.1, by which defendant No.2 11 O.S. No.6590/2013 acquired title. The plaintiff admits in plaint that the agreement was for "acquired property" post-pending partition suit in O.S.No.1452/2011, dismissed on 12.02.2021. No proof of advance payment, no receipt, bank records. Agreement notarized by deceased notary, raising fraud doubts. No co- owners' signatures. The plaintiff failed to pay stamp duty/ penalty, rendering it inadmissible. PW-1 evidence discarded. The evidence of DW-1 unchallenged. Hence, no valid agreement or advance proved. Hence, above Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Issue No.2:- Under Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness/ willingness. Plaint claims it, but no evidence of funds i.e., bank statements. Legal notice at Ex.P.3 issued after 2 years; no follow-up. The plaintiff knew of defective title. Absence for cross-examination implies lack of bonafides. DW-1 unchallenged affirms no willingness due to invalid title. Hence, above Issue No.2 is answered in the negative. 12 O.S. No.6590/2013
12. Issue No.3 & Additional Issue No.2:- Under Order I Rule 10 CPC, all necessary parties must be impleaded for effective decree. The suit schedule property was the joint family property; co-sharers i.e., mother - Smt.T.Rathnamma, brother - T.N.Suresh Kumar not joined. Son of defendant No.2
- Ajay H.S. has coparcenary interest. Gift Deed to defendant No.3 dated 07.11.2012 and sale to Shivaram as per Ex.D.1 dated 22.01.2018 unchallenged; subsequent purchaser not impleaded, attracting lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Suit is bad for non-joinder; no decree possible without them. Hence, above Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.2 are answered in the affirmative.
13. Additional Issue No.1:- The defendant No.3 proves through Partition Deed - Ex.P.1 and Affidavit that on 10.07.2011, the suit schedule property was joint; defendant No.2 had imperfect title. The defendant No.1 had no right. Agreement violates Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Pending O.S.No.1452/2011 known to plaintiff. Title ceased 13 O.S. No.6590/2013 post-Gift Deed. Hence, Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
14. Additional issue No.3:- The Gift Deed dated 07.11.2012 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is admitted, registered document. The plaintiff has not produced any cogent evidence to show that the said Deed was fraudulent, sham or collusive.
15. On the contrary, the plaintiff has not challenged the Gift Deed by seeking its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act against both executant and beneficiary. Necessary parties such as other co-sharers, minor coparcener and subsequent purchaser Shri.Shivaram have not been impleaded, making the relief ineffective.
16. Plaintiff's agreement of sale dated 10.07.2011 is itself unproved and inadmissible for want of proper stamping; hence, she cannot establish any superior right against validly registered Gift Deed. The defendant No.2, being a co-owner with only an undivided share at that point, could transfer her share. At best, the plaintiff could claim equitable rights against 14 O.S. No.6590/2013 defendant No.2, not against defendant No.3, who derived title by the registered conveyance. The plaintiff remained absent for cross-examination and did not rebut affidavit of DW-1, leaving the version of defendants unchallenged.
17. Accordingly, the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act was upon the plaintiff to show how the Gift Deed is not binding. She has failed to discharge that burden. The plaintiff has not proved that the registered Gift Deed dated 07.11.2012 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on her. Hence, Additional Issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
18. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff fails on all counts: invalid agreement, no readiness, non-joinder, defective title. Specific performance discretionary; not granted for uncertain contracts or unclean hands suppression of facts. No refund as no advance proved. Cancellation of Gift Deed/ Sale Deed not maintainable without parties. Hence, above Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
15 O.S. No.6590/2013
19. Issue No.5: In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 1st day of September, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Smt. Sathyalakshmi List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Registered Partition Deed dated 17.11.2011 Ex.P.2 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P.3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 02.07.2013 Ex.P.4 : Letter issued by Department of Post 16 O.S. No.6590/2013 List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 : Sri. T.N.Ravi List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dated
22.01.2018
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.