Sri Marilinge Gowda vs Sri Chandrashekaraiah on 25 February, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Marilinge Gowda vs Sri Chandrashekaraiah on 25 February, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

I

{N THE HIGH. COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2()_I__(_)

BEFORE:

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE. ANAND   

REGULAR SECOND APPE/\1;.'m);4«%1,1  OF; 

BETWEEN:

S1*i.E\/Iariiinge Gowda,

Son ofJava1'e Gowda,

Aged about 53 yams, 4_ -_

Residing at Lakshmi Sagaﬁ  '

B-aIema11'anaI1al}i \/Aiilage,  =

Bhadra1v;-HhiTaiuk,   V    ' 

Bhadrmms--577  %    APPELLANT

( B y S h K . N 3192'-z:'§'E' n.1E1;1,t'1i;=.r_'\"r;i vQc':z1tc': )

AND:

;~ 

E . S1'i.Ch«:~1_ndr;1s}1:k:1;'aii:1.h";
; 3011 of Es'hyVa'-I1':1i21}i,
 '?Ag_¢d about 
, S;fi.K(':;és.}1aiiz-:E1.
V , 2 ' S()"1".,()f Ee:hWa:'21ial1.
A'  9 y'czu's..

3.  S:ii.'Sisfehxiillgzxiall.

3a>i1«;_(;>f' Ifi:~;hw";11*aial1.

V n   about .2! years.

5



R)

Ail are residents of

B1'Lll1£1m2l1'lz11'£-E Beedi.

Khaji l\/Iohalla,

Bhadi'avathi--577 30E.  RESPONDEN

("By Sl11'l_S.V.Pl'Ell\"d.Sl1. Advocate E01" Re.~';pt'mdent   .

This Regular Second Appeal  

Code of Civil Pi'0L:edure, i908'Llgi1i11Sl".f_h€i Judgnlientl aiidl';deei'e"eep

dated: ?.6.3.20()7 passed in RA.,p4N'{).l2/2{')()2'--()l1".:Iil€l"lilil€iliOf the
Presiding Officer, Fast Track C0iu'r.t_¥iI.u Shi:*I1t1,<.h._{a,' diszznissiiig the
appeal and filed aigtiimt thel""J't:d'gm"e.nt ang1~~.,9eC1'ee- dated:
30.9.2002

passed in O.S.'Ne£.97f--_l ('iii_lthe"f'iple of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and }MFC;. Bli£tdiava1_tl_iii';

This Appezilgit)niitigitm'l'0'1=;id--:i*1;iS§i£_iii this day. the Court delivered tEie«"§':3vEl_dwirigz"--_: " ' v i ' iii:'_ﬁjtjt3MEN"i"

Heaid the Cdu"i'i';<;'ell for the appellant .

"7..l"=..Tiie'~appeliant was the piaiiitiff be1°0re the trial court seekingt."Spee«--i'l"ic pei'f'0i'ma:i.ce of an agreement of sale. It not in .e,idisputelt'hat an agreement of saie in respect of the Suit property iw:i$;'iexecLited by the p'd1"CI'l¥.:5 til' the i'es:.pmidei1ts herein aiid that iwithiii a short span of time from the date of e><.ecuti0n of the 5 law, was another ground for withhoiding the relief of speciﬁc pe1'f0nm=1nce and directing refund of ezmtest money with interest in the ttlternative. This having been L';lI'I'ii2d in appeal Eat;-sy been 21ffi1'med by the atppeliate court.

The Counsei for the ztppeliamt wouidh_sti13.Vz:11it.A_ftl1ut'the '' following substantiai questions of Eatwj, éariseh,__ft:'.»1' C0nside1'2t1i0I1:

(at) Whether the app1'eciz1ti()1t't>t'evyidenee and dottuments by the courts beE('5w.7i.s 'peaftx/e1'se..:fsx0'ttilt' as it relates to H :'ecVtitq1'1 0 1'_ e pet"!'0nmt11ees".' (bxtiygyﬁa "the made by the defendatnts for };0ss:essi()11 of suit property and in the isstte to that effect', whether the courts justified in directing the plaitttiﬁ" to hand .t.)\2'e:" possession of the suit pmperty to the ciet'et1da12'tts'.' Z

(c) Whether the firgt appellate court wan'; justified in re_}ecting. the tt[)pllL'LlElL)ﬂ for production of"~;s.tldtlt'lot1ttl evidence'?

((1) Whether the C0t11'ES below Zwlellre'j1.tstf_.1'"ie§1 jllimpatlssiitgﬂue f impugned jttdgtnettts. tjmd t:lec1_'ees_'?

The Counsel would fL1rth_er C()11tA€§!.1.fl:A.El'l_Ell"-in te19m':~';--.0f Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act', ll9l':_3'{he1'Ei:th1t1l'te-ti ~ttelt"e1f1'eti to as ' the Act' for brevity) the<t1f_ia~i.c(>i,t1't nt)t'j"us._tif'ie'tl in decreeing the suit by granting§'1"ef:t-{telloi'"l*et1t'i1ee"3-to_t:1'1I.)he)};-.b T--E'"ii.~:; vvas at 1"elie'fcittimecl in the :,1lternz1tliVe]'eif {he _4S}3«elCil'ic .;:5e1't'c)1"tht1t1ce of contract was re1"t<1e1'edl'an"impossi-l:5ilit§r-;l___l'"This is not the case. in the present ci1'ctt't'nst;tt1ces.'=.AThe l'h;-mlsltip if any is not 2-tppc.t'e:tt. The . 1"'e$_ponde.n't:<,"even if were minors, as on the date of the suit, have .i1}IAE'.'ctl.1Ti€dl1lltlj'()l'l.ty and it is not their case that they would be left Wl[llotltl"Etn.yllt111tl. . It is on record that the re.spo1'1det1'ts held other which would be Sttfficient for their livelihood . On the other hand, the ttppe.llant 113.3 expendetl at sttbstzmtial sum of money 5 (3 in iinproving the Eand as he had been put in p(')ssessi<>1i and he has no other lands; except the suit p:'opei'ty' for his tik't3}tItt')()d and :.x:inee he has developed the land by his sweat and }abOt.tI', be unjust and inequitable and the very Section 20 cottid his favour insofai' as the court is requi_1fet.E,t__o cogiéidveitt tf;i1e."h;'_1'1=(VjshtjpVV ' of the plaintiff' as well. in batancing the e_t:1it1iitie$"--En' tTz1vV't:)tt'r.j"t_>.fbthe parties. He wouid ptace I'€IiEtttti',e"'t311 a deeis'ion'~.b5;~.t4he"'Madras' High Court in S.V.Sci;-'n'<g11"c'tli:jtgZi 'A/'c':r.lEH"_ mm' '(J'.'r'"r"2e}*..s' 12.5.10. T. Rcztm1.s'm:'m2i Nm:.fc.zr um! u1f::(}r:s*,'="11/lmfrczx 389, to contend that theha:;dS--Eiip;=thagt i"e1eVant__W.}i)uId be ht'1I'dShtp that was estabiisliett ;t;»~'fm§:.he~t.t;t::t:e or the agreement and not any subsequent hzujdsvhip,-_eiAt'he1*.1{i contend that there xv;-15 ittztdeottatcy "of e<i,§_tt':';idei'a.jon 012'" the-t«~i't would result in a dis:-tdvantage to the i".defené'E'z1nVtf9_'inéezteeutiitg the sale deed at at remote point of time. On t)th.e1;'hE;aiid, the Counsel woutd point out that Section 20 of it the Act "iti$s__elf ctarifies that inadequacy of consideration cannot be _ Cons»idei'ed as a ground For hardsttip. it is further pointed out that Seetion 20(2) contetnptates that reiief ought to be prayed in the 3' 2titei'nnt'ive. It" there is no pI"Lly€i'. the relief cannot be gn=ti'1ted inst)i"zti' refund of eatrnest money. it is thei'ei"oi'e by way of abundant caution the alternative reliefs of specific p.er.tf(3-ii.i_n;.tVnee well as refund ofeetrnest money was S(')LEgh'[. ittioes'Aiit>t"Eoi'ie--w'V, that the court ought to have direct-e'"' it-'efun-ifj of "1*n'oi1ey._j'wliii.ie rejecting the prayer for specific perf't'5iiii1i:--nee Wnhottt «.ii1id,iiC';1tii'it.gV the impossibility of pe1'foi'it1at1'e.e"'*i. if it "Hence. the substantial question of iziw.__t§tutfiwouid a:1i"i~::sje for eonleidemtitiii in addition to the questions ififj.1'ii1edvi'iiti:the"~M<:~h:0fzinduin of Appeal would be. whetheif' theifei'-Awi't_s"'i ju_Stii._t'iCi1t'ieh' in the courts below denying<.._the' :'eiiet'f'o_f" ape-r;.jii'i<;' performance of contract in the absence (')i'7Zt11yi tCi;1;a1biL?ic&t$'Q_ItSi{O deny such relief. in the" ii};tet5;.v'*t1ii"t;l Cii'CUE1]SEE1ﬂCBS, the minority of the i'esp'oi'«z.de_nts us ()I1Vi1i"'{t§3v...r.,i..f,.i.'ii(;3 of the agreement. is not disputed. In f2iet., titesuit.'ii$.vbi'<)ught Elgétiilst the m.inoi's represented by their this-i*'be so, the ﬁndiiigs; oi" the trial court: that it inVt)_i\-"edV.the7.initei"est' oi' minors; and therefoi'e, it wouid miiitztte 'V against. their' interests to direct specific pei'foi'manee of the Z» 8 eormaet in f;m)L1r of the a1ppelh1nt._ it ea-rmtnt he tweed to the tenor of Section 20. The discretion of the Court in this reg'.-1rd clues not stand fettered. The 1'e;1.x':.)ns assigrted by the tried eotrrt :1;1":.t.1:"t""f._y"',"--that the very II"&1I1S'¢1CEi()E1 appezued to be barred by lam-',:"in. was an embmgo insofttr as the 'cl1'lt3v.r"t£1"[Vi£.)*l1.'()1L';_¢ the :.§2't:i4t pmjaettty, 9 which \2»~'zrs darkest land, was fettered L1rt<j_ei"-- he n()t1-z'1_!vie'mrtit>i1».C'E--a,t1'$eu insofztr as the father of the t'esV;5t>:1de.:1t§'*._w:tef.= et)hee1'11ed, in ziiietutting the same witlmé_ the term _1'e;<;t.1j_i:.:ted. woutd not _jLESiify the specific perf0m1anee of lAf1V¢_v.(..'(~)1V1Li'vf_:_1L'E:.V 2;1t'1"di'1'a~~V._'tlne' light of the fact that the p121i11tiff p}:=~m§.~,pt¢d whVaAte'\?er"':"n'0tive had sought for refund t3.t'ez1_:'3-Ieet'--£1'::a_rje}',the'e..Q::'.e'11titm that it vvas sought by way of z:bL:11d:in.t_ {:2;1%tatiet:1Vi's"i1hi:1_;ttei9}z1E sirree it is the relief that \-\-'LES prayed for b),f'~t.E1e'plziintiff h'}»;"hself. The jttdgmeht of the trial court h;1\-'ér§:.: §g1*ar1'1ted 'th'e_t_'e§iet" eamnot be said to be iilegt-1] or not j:us;t&ifie<j." ;O_ne.._._t)ther contention raised by the counsel for the 2ip;je.E.1it:1t"tha.t__theTé1ppelI:11'1t lmving been put in ;t>()ssessi<)n under the agree1_11.e13Vt.:'~itseifand having effected impE"()\-"6I1'1Cn1.*; to the tend, 'the di1'e"<;',tiA(1~,n to dehver p0s3es.<;ion of the ;f)r'<_)pe1'ty is relief 3 M) to the breadth of mat ciiscretion and the Inanncr in which it h¢.1\s been excrL:i.<..;t:d.

Acc<._)1'<iir'1g}_y, the appeal is1"s:_jectc:cl.

UV    .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court