Bangalore District Court
Yashodhamma vs Ashok on 10 March, 2026
KABC010018672024
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.), LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of March 2026
O.S.No.549/2024
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Yashodhamma
W/o Sri. Sallappa,
Aged about 52 years
Previously R/at No.53
1st Main Road,
Near Euro kids,
Nagasandra Post,
Bel Mar Layout,Bangalore -73,
And also:
R/at No.14/1997,
Chitravathi Road Gutta,
Puttaparthy,
Ananthapuram District,
Andhra Pradesh-515134
(By Sri. M. Venkatesh, Advocate)
O.S. No.549/2024
2
Vs.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri.Ashok
S/o late D.S.Ramesh,
Aged about 50 years
2. Smt. Rohini.D.A
W/o Ashok
Aged about 45 years,
3. Smt.Aishwarya
D/o Ashok
Aged about 25 years
4. Sri. Dhivakar.R
S/o late D.S.Ramesh,
Aged about 45 years,
All R/at No.20,
Air Force Compound,
1st Main Road,
Vaishnavi Layout,
Vidhyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore-560097
(Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 20.01.2024
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Suit for specific
declaration & possession, suit performance of contract
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 19.08.2024
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 10.03.2026
was pronounced:
O.S. No.549/2024
3
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 01 21
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for the following reliefs:-
(a) To direct the defendants to receive the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and execute registered sale deed in her favour or in favour of her nominee in respect of the suit schedule property;
(b) Further to direct the defendants to pay liquidated damages to her if they fail to execute the registered sale deed in her favour;
(c) and such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that :
2.1 The defendant No.1 and 4 are the sons and the defendant No.2 is daughter-in-law of D.S.Ramesh and 3rd defendant is daughter of 1st defendant. Further it is averred that, the late D.S.Ramesh was the absolute owner in the possession of the property No.20, East to west 20 ft., O.S. No.549/2024 4 and North to South 40 ft., in all measuring 800 sq.ft.
situated at Jarakabande Kaval Village, presently Vaishnavi Layout, 1st Main Road, near Air Force Compound, Vidhyaranyapura, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, old Municipal No.357/53/1B/8A/20, present BBMP khata Khatha No.357/53/1B/8A/20, having acquired the same from his vendor namely Sri. Hari Rao under registered sale deed dated 16/03/2006. Thereafter, khata has been transferred in the name of D.S.Ramesh and he has paid upto date taxes to the authority concerned in respect of above said property. It is further submitted that the schedule property is the self-acquired property of said D.S. Ramesh, the defendants have fixed the sale consideration on the market value of Rs.48,28,000/- and the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- on 25/10/2018, According to the plaintiff the defendants have received the said sale consideration from the plaintiff before the witness and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract pursuant to the agreement of sale dated O.S. No.549/2024 5 25.10.2018 and to obtain registered sale deed from the defendants in respect of schedule property, but the defendants went on post poning the same by giving one reason or other and informed the plaintiff that they have let out houses to the tenants on lease basis and unable to vacate them from the schedule property.
2.2 It is further contended that, the defendants subsequently demanded the plaintiff to pay higher sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, accordingly both of them have agreed and fixed the sale consideration of Rs.53,00,000/- and on the same day the plaintiff has paid of Rs.23,00,000/- to the defendants before the witness and in all they have received of Rs.43,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the defendants have executed registered agreement of sale dated 25/03/2021 in favour of the plaintiff in the office of the sub-registrar and agreed to receive the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff by undertaking to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in her nominee in respect of the schedule property. The O.S. No.549/2024 6 defendants have assured plaintiff that they have not encumbered the suit schedule property in favour of anybody i.e., sale, gift, mortgage, leas GPA or Will and settlement deed and further assured to the plaintiff that there is no any female/woman right, minor right and court attachments in respect of schedule property and in case if any dispute arises the defendants have agreed to solve the same at their cost and agreed to furnish all original documents at the time of executing the registered sale deed. It is averred that during the subsistence of the agreement of sale, father of defendant No.1 and 4 namely, D.S.Ramesh died leaving behind his LRs and the said LRs are already on record.
2.3 It is further averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff has approached the defendants to execute register sale deed in her favour in respect of suit schedule property, but the defendants have failed to execute register sale deed in her favour pursuant to agreement of sale dated 25/03/2021 and hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 21/10/2023 to the defendants by RPAD calling upon O.S. No.549/2024 7 them to receive remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- from her and to execute the registered sale deed in her favour or in favour of her nominee in respect of the suit schedule property within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, failing which the plaintiff will take appropriate legal action against the defendants. However, the defendants have received the legal notice as per postal track consignment report dated 23/10/2023, but the defendants have not replied to the same or have not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, filed the present suit.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property No.20, East to west 20 ft., and North to South 40 ft., in all measuring 800 sq,. ft. with construction thereon, situate at old Jarakabande Kaval Village, presently Vaishnavi Layout, 1st Main Road, Near Air Force Compound, Vidyaranyapura, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore-560097, old Municipal khata No.357/53/1B/8A/20, present BBMP Khatha No.357/53/1B/8A/20, bounded on:-
O.S. No.549/2024 8 East by: property No. 19, West by: property No.21.
North by: 40 ft Road, South by: Air force compound wall,
3. The defendants entered appearance through their counsel but did not chosen to file the written statement. Hence, the written statement of the defendants was taken as nil. Thereafter, the case was posted for plaintiff's evidence.
4. During evidence, in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and got closed the evidence of her side.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the records.
6. On the basis of above materials, the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants and Late. D.S. Ramesh had executed a registered O.S. No.549/2024 9 agreement of sale on 25.03.2021 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.53,00,000/- to the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have committed a breach of contract of agreement of sale dated 25.03.2021?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23.05.2011?
5. What order or decree?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 4 - In the Affirmative Point No.5 - As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT Nos.1 TO 3 :- Since these points are interconnected with each other, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
O.S. No.549/2024 10
9. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance contract under the registered agreement of sale dated 25.03.2021.
10. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW.1 and has reiterated the averments of the plaint. To prove her case she has relied on the following documents:
O.S. No.549/2024 11 Ex.P.1 - registered agreement of sale dated 29.03.2021, which discloses that Sri D.S. Ramesh and his children Ashok and his wife Smt. Rohini D.A. along with daughter Smt. Aishwaya and Sri Divakar R., the 2 nd son of Sri D.S. Ramesh, have executed the said agreement of sale with consent. As per Ex.P.1 the sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 53,00,000/- . The agreement of sale reveals that the defendants have received Rs.23,00,000/- from the plaintiff and therefore, totally the defendants have received Rs.43,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to receive the balance consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of registration. Further they have stated that they have not encumbered the schedule property in favour of any third parties and the possession of the same would be given to the plaintiff while executing the registered sale deed. The signature of D.S. Ramesh is marked at Ex.P.4, the signature of defendant No.1 is marked at Ex.P.6, the signature of defendant No.2 is marked at Ex.P.3, signature of defendant No.4 is marked at Ex.P.2, signature of defendant No.3 at Ex.P.5. These signatures on Ex.P.1 O.S. No.549/2024 12 have remained unchallenged. The postal acknowledgments at Ex.P. 9 to 12 disclose that the notice dated 21.10.2023 at Ex.P7 was received by the defendants and inspite of the same they have not come forward to perform their part of contract.
O.S. No.549/2024 13
11. A careful scrutiny of the materials denote that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of Late D.S. Ramesh acquired under the registered sale deed dated 16.03.2006 at Ex.P.13. On 25.10.2018, Late D.S.Ramesh had entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff herein as per Ex.P.15 by agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.48,28,000/- by receiving Rs.20,00,000/- as earnest amount. Under the said agreement D.S.Ramesh has agreed to execute the sale deed by receiving the remaining consideration amount and upon obtaining the relevant documents. Under the aforesaid registered agreement of sale no specific time period was fixed for the execution of the sale deed by the vendor. It is further relevant to note that, Late D.S.Ramesh and the defendant No.1 to 4 had executed another registered agreement of sale on 25.03.2021 at Ex.P.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.53,00,000/- by acknowledging the receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- under Ex.P.15. They had further received Rs.23,00,000/- under the said agreement of sale O.S. No.549/2024 14 at Ex.P1 in the presence of the witnesses, the defendants had further under taken to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff upon receiving the remaining consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- within the period of 6 months from the date of agreement of sale. PW1 has deposed that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract pursuant to the agreement of sale and obtain a registered sale deed from the defendants in respect of schedule property. Further she has deposed that she had approached the defendants to receive the reaming balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- from her and requested the defendants to execute register sale deed, but the defendants have failed to execute the same and hence she got issued legal notice dated 21/10/2023 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, failing which she will take appropriate legal action against the defendants. Inspite of receipt of notice, the defendants neither replied the same nor have come forward to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. PW1 has further O.S. No.549/2024 15 deposed that the defendants are trying to alienate suit schedule property and if the defendants allowed to do so, the plaintiff will be put to great loss and hardship.
O.S. No.549/2024 16
12. From the above evidence and the documents it is clear that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract by paying remaining sale consideration as agreed but the defendants had postponed the same on one or the other pretext. The evidence on record revels that, the defendants have executed a registered sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and in spite of enhancing the sale consideration under Ex.P.1 they have failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. In the present case the defendants though present have not contested the matter by filing written-statement or cross- examined PW.1. The postal track reports at Ex.P.9 to P.12 clearly reveal the legal notice sent at Ex.P.7 was served on the defendant No.1 to 4. Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when a parties to the contract agree to substitute a new contract for it or to rescind or alter it then the original contract need not be performed. In such cases the earlier agreement automatically becomes inoperative and separate cancellation is not legally necessary. In the present case the earlier agreement of sale O.S. No.549/2024 17 at Ex.P.15 stood replaced with Ex.P.1 and it is not the case of the defendants that earlier agreement of sale is still subsisting and therefore, the new agreement of sale cannot be enforced. Therefore when there is a novation of agreement sale it is not mandatory to execute a separate cancellation deed as the earlier contract stands vitiated once the new contract is substituted validly.
13. In Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji V. Sita Ram Thappar (1996) 4 SCC 526, the Supreme court opined that there is distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific performance. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. Considering the evidence on record there is absolutely no material to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff regarding his willingness and readiness. The Apex court opined U,N,Krishnamurthy v, A.M. Krishnamurthy 2022 SCC Online SC 840 that the courts O.S. No.549/2024 18 will frown upon suits which are not filed immediately after the breach/refusal. In the above case admittedly, the parties have expressed their unequivocal intention to make essence time as the contract under Ex.P.1 but the defendants have not turned up and the plaintiff has every right under the agreement to enforce the contract and the suit of the plaintiff is in time.
14. In Kunwar vs. State of U.P., 1993 (3) AWC 1305 (All--D.B.), it is held that where a particular material assertion is made by a witness in his examination-in-chief and the witness is not cross-examined in respect of that assertion, it will be taken that the party affected had admitted the truth of that assertion. Therefore the non cross examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff will be taken that the defendant has admitted the truth of that assertion. The plaintiff has proved the due execution of the registered sale agreement by preponderance of probability.
O.S. No.549/2024 19
15. It is relevant to note that Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam 2023 provides : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 105 of the said Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The evidence on record denotes that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden by producing oral and documentary evidence on the principles of preponderance of probability. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and believable but the defendant has not stepped into the witness box to give his version of facts which in view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) read with illustration (g) thereto which leads to an adverse inference that if the defendant had examined O.S. No.549/2024 20 himself his evidence would have been unfavorable to him and thus an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant if he does not present himself for cross examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute the allegations made against him or to support his pleadings as taken in the written statement and this view is fortified from the judgments in Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram (2011) 8 SCC 613 and Iqbal Basith v. N.Subbalakshmi and another, (2021)2 SCC 718. Therefore Point No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
16. POINT No. :- Admittedly the sale agreement in the above case is dated 25.03.2021 which is after the commencement of the Specific Relief Amendment Act 2018.
Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 reads as under:
"Section 10: The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the Court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16."
O.S. No.549/2024 21
17. In M. Suresh v. Mahadevamma in R.F.A.No.1560/2011 has held that amendment to Section 20 being prospective in nature enforceable with effect from 01.10.2018. The Supreme Court in Smt.Katta Sujatha Reddy&Anr.versus Siddamsetty Infra Project Pvt. Ltd & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712, has held in the context of amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act that the said provision which remained in the realm of the courts' discretion was converted into a mandatory provision, prescribing a power that a Court has to exercise when the ingredients are fulfilled. In the above case there is nothing to demonstrate that the plaintiff has failed to meet the required conditions for the grant of decree when it is mandatory to pass a decree for specific performance of contract. In view of the above findings the Point No.4 is answered in Affirmative.
18. POINT No.5 :- In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
O.S. No.549/2024 22 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
The defendants are directed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of this order, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the registered sale deed in due process of law.
[[
Further, the plaintiff is directed to
deposit the balance consideration
amount before this Court within 90 days from today.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of March 2026).
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S. No.549/2024 23 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - Smt. Yashodamma -
b) Defendants' side: NIL.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P. 1 Registered agreement of sale dated 29.03.2021 Ex.P. 2 The signature of defendant No. 4 on Ex.P. 1 Ex.P. 3 The signature of defendant No. 2 on Ex.P. 1 Ex.P. 4 The signature of D.S. Ramesh on on Ex.P. 1 Ex.P. 5 The signature of defendant No. 3 on Ex.P. 1 Ex.P. 6 The signature of defendant No. 1 on Ex.P. 1 Ex.P. 7 Office copy of the notice dated 21.10.2023 Ex.P. 8 4 postal receipts are together marked.
Exs.P. 9 4 postal track report are marked to 12 subject to production of Section 65B certificate Ex.P. 13 Digital copy of sale deed executed in favour of of D.S. Ramesh Ex.P. 14 Section 65 B certificate under Indian O.S. No.549/2024 24 Evidence Act in support Ex.P 9 to 12.
b) Defendants' side : NIL XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.