Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh vs Byregowda S on 6 March, 2025
KABC010026212021
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
O.S.No.840/2021
Plaintiff:- Sri. Venkatesh,
Aged about 67 years,
S/o D. Muniyappa,
R/at No.301/4, S.L.V.
Mansion, Kacharakanahalli,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru-560 084.
(By Sri.G. Krishnappa.,
Advocate)
-vs-
2 O.S.No.840 of 2021
Defendants:- 1. Sri. S. Byregowda,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late M. Srinivas,
R/at No.5, Shaneshwara
Temple Road, Hennur Cross,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 043.
2. M/s. V2 Constructions
A Partnership Firm having its
Offi ce at No.11/2, B Jehiel, 1 st
Floor, 1 st Main Road, Hennur
Gardens,
Kalyannagar, Hennur Bande
Bengaluru-560 043.
Represented by it's Managing
Partners.
(a) Mr. L.T. COL. A.C.
Belliappa,
S/o Late Sri. A.C. Chengappa,
Aged about 58 years
(b) Mr. C. Srinivas
Aged about 35 years
S/o Sri. Chandrappa
3. Mr. N. Jagannath
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri. Narasimha Reddy
Vakati
4. Mr. Thilak Kumar N
Aged about 34 years
S/o Sri. Narasimha Reddy
Vakati
3 O.S.No.840 of 2021
No.3 and 4 are residing at
No.7/1, 1 st Floor, 3 rd Cross,
Thammanna Layout,
Lingarajapuram,
Bengaluru-84.
5. Mr. V.J. Eliza Beth
Aged about 42 years
S/o Sri. V.C. Josepth
Residing at Hebbettageri
Village, K. Nidugane Post,
Madikere Taluk, Kodagu,
Karnataka-571 201.
(D1 to D5- Sri.K.V.S.,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 01.02.2021
suit
Nature of the Suit : Specific Performance
Date of commencement of : 20.01.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 06.03.2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
04 01 05
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
4 O.S.No.840 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
That, plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019. The suit schedule property is non-agricultural land a flat in 1 st floor of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff has also sought for declaration to declare that Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 to 5 is not binding upon the plaintiff.
Schedule property described in the plaint is as under:-
Schedule A All that piece and parcel of the property bearing House List No.114, Old Khata No.15, Byatarayanapura CMC NO.114/2, Khatha No.112/123/125-114, BBMP Khatha No.112/123/125-144-2, situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, measuring East to 5 O.S.No.840 of 2021 West 52 feet and North to South 62 feet in all measuring 3224 square feet and bounded on the:-
East by: Hennur Village Road,
West by: Muralidhar's property and
North by: Nagaraj's property
South by: Road
Schedule B
First floor portion constructed on the A schedule property Flat No.F-1B, measuring Super Builtup Area 800 Square feet with car parking proportionate undivided share on the A schedule property bounded on the:
East by: Hennur Village
West by: Private property
North by: Private property
South by: Road
2) The facts pleaded necessary for the
disposal of this suit in nutshell are stated as under:-
a) That, the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 is the owner of residential property bearing House list 6 O.S.No.840 of 2021 No.114, old katha No.15, Byatarayanapura CMC and bearing katha No.112/123/125/114 situated at Hennur Village, which is described as schedule 'A'. Defendant No.1 has obtained plan and license from BBMP to construct a four floors residential building in suit 'A' schedule property. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has agreed to sell a flat numbered as F-
1B in first floor constructed on the schedule 'A' property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration amount of ₹.25,00,000/-. It is submitted by the plaintiff that in order to evidence the transactions defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale on 02.05.2019 agreeing to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff. Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is registered in the offi ce of Sub-registrar Bengaluru and as on the date of agreement the defendant No.1 has received part consideration amount of ₹.10,00,000/-. Details of payment made are as under:
7 O.S.No.840 of 2021
1) Rs. 2,80,000/- through RTGS No.2456101005909 dated 30.04.2019 through plaintiff's account i.e., Canara Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
2) Rs. 2,20,000/- under cheque bearing No.859861 dated 02.05.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
3) Rs.5,00,000/- under cheque bearing No.859862 dated 20.05.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
b) The plaintiff submits that on 12.06.2020 defendant No.1 has received further advance consideration amount of ₹.2,00,000/- through RTGS under cheque bearing No.292107 drawn on Canara Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has undertaken to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of 'B' schedule property on or before 10.08.2020 and receive remaining consideration amount of ₹.12,00,000/-.
c) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on several occasions plaintiff requested the defendant 8 O.S.No.840 of 2021 No.1 to execute the Sale Deed but, the defendant has not came forward to execute the Sale Deed by receiving balance consideration amount. It is specific case of the plaintiff that he had suffi cient funds in his hands to pay the balance consideration amount & to get the Sale Deed registered and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 is not ready to abide by the conditions of Agreement of sale and as such, plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 24.10.2020 calling upon the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in respect of 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff submits that the legal notice came to be returned unserved.
The plaintiff by way of an amendment has added a paragraphs stating that 1 st defendant after execution of agreement of sale in collusion with 2 nd defendant entered into a joint development agreement and on the basis of the joint development Agreement defendants 9 O.S.No.840 of 2021 have changed earlier plan. It is submitted by the plaintiff that 2 nd defendant has executed a registered Sale Deed on 15.07.2021 in favour of defendant No.3 to
5. It is specific case of the plaintiff that 1 st defendant and 2 nd defendant with an intention to make wrongful gain have changed the earlier plan and on the basis of new plan 2 nd defendant has executed a registered Sale Deed during the substance of registered agreement of sale executed by 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has contended that the suit for specific performance has been filed in order to enforce the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019.
3) a. In response to the suit summons issued, the 1 st defendant has appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The 1 st defendant in the written statement has admitted his ownership of over the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule property. However, the defendant has contended that he had no intention to 10 O.S.No.840 of 2021 sell the schedule property to the plaintiff. It is submitted by the defendant that in the year 2019 1 st defendant intending to complete construction work of apartment and since plaintiff was well known to defendant for past several years, he approached the plaintiff to advance hand loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. The defendant has contended that at the time of advancing hand loan plaintiff agreed to pay the loan with interest at the rate of 2% per month and demanded to execute a nominal agreement of sale in respect of suit 'B' schedule property as a security. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that he believing the words of plaintiff had executed a nominal agreement of sale on 02.05.2019 but, agreement of sale is executed as a security to obtain loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that the loan was agreed to be repaid within 2 years and thereafter, defendant No.1 had paid interest to the plaintiff regularly as agreed 11 O.S.No.840 of 2021 and as assured by him. It is further submitted by the defendant No.1 that again some financial crisis arose for completion of apartment and as such, once again defendant has obtained hand loan of ₹.2,00,000/- on 12.06.2020 from the plaintiff and also issued two blank cheques bearing No.316019 and 316020in favour of the plaintiff.
b) It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that plaintiff has suppressed material facts and filed this false suit to grab the valuable property belongs to the defendant No.1. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that he never ever intended to sell the schedule property and agreement of sale was executed as a nominal document for security towards repayment of hand loan. The defendant No.1 submits that he is ready to return hand loan amount of ₹.12,00,000/- to the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff with malafide intention to grab the valuable property belonging to defendant 12 O.S.No.840 of 2021 has filed this suit for specific performance of the contract and therefore, defendant has contended that suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4) The defendant No.2 to 5 have though appeared have not contested the suit by filing the written statement.
5) By considering pleadings and documents produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in offi ce had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed registered agreement of sale dt:02.05.2019 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of 'B' schedule property as alleged in plaint para No.4 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is / was ever ready and willing perform his part of 13 O.S.No.840 of 2021 contract ?
3. Whether the defendants prove that they have executed a nominal agreement of sale for security purpose for the hand loan of Rs.12,00,000/- borrowed from the plaintiff and agreed to return the said amount within 2 years as contended in para 8 of the written statement ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for ?
5. What Order or decree ?
6) In order to prove the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove above said issues, plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and he was produced 7 documents. The defendants have not cross examined PW.1. The defendants have also not adduced oral or documentary evidence in support of their claim.
14 O.S.No.840 of 2021
7) I have considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff to the suit in light of the arguments advanced before me and my findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.2: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: Plaintiff is entitled for
the relief claimed
Issue No.5: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
8) Issue Nos.1 and 3 :- That, these two
issues are with respect to execution of agreement of sale, nature of the document and defence taken by the defendant No.1 that Agreement of sale was executed for securing loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. These issues are interconnected & in order to avoid repetition they have been dealt together.
15 O.S.No.840 of 2021
9) The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific performance of the contract to enforce the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019. The defendant No.1 has appeared and admitted the execution of the Agreement of sale but contended that the Agreement of sale is a nominal document executed for securing loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. So, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the Agreement of sale is duly executed with an intention to sell the property. The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document. while "signing a document" simply refers to the act of putting your signature on a document, "execution of a document" means not only signing it but also signifying full understanding and agreement with the terms within the document, essentially making it legally binding; Hence, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 was 16 O.S.No.840 of 2021 executed with an intention to sell the schedule property.
10) In order to establish due execution of Agreement of sale and the intention to execute the document the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1. PW.1 has reiterated the contents of the Ex.P.5- Agreement of sale. PW.1 has categorically stated that defendant with an intention to sell the property has executed the Agreement of sale. The testimony of PW- 1 regarding defendant No.1's intention to sell the property, negotiation and execution of agreement of sale is not denied. There is nothing available one record to disbelieve the version of plaintiff.
11) I have perused the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 in detail. It is clear from the recitals made in the Agreement of sale that the defendant has executed the document agreeing to sell the schedule 17 O.S.No.840 of 2021 property to the plaintiff herein. Under Section 92 of Evidence Act, prohibits oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written document. This section applies to contracts, grants, and other documents that are required to be in writing. When terms of the contract is proved by producing the document as required under sec.91 of Evidence Act, then oral evidence contradicting the terms of the contract is inadmissible in evidence. The defendant No.1 has admitted the execution of the Agreement of sale and only contended that same was executed to secure loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. However the defendant No.1 can lead oral evidence by admitting terms of document, to show in what circumstance document - agreement is executed by him. Defendant No.1 has not adduced any evidence to show that there was a transaction of hand loan between plaintiff and defendant and in order to evidence the loan 18 O.S.No.840 of 2021 transaction, Agreement of sale is executed as a nominal document. There is no cross-examination of PW.1 in this regard and hence, in my considered opinion when execution of Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is proved by oral evidence of PW-1, its terms of agreement is also proved to the satisfaction of the court. If terms of Agreement of sale is considered then defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff herein for a consideration amount of ₹.25,00,000/-.
12) The Agreement of sale shows that an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- is transferred to the account of 1 st defendant through RTGS on 30.04.2019, an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- is transferred in favour of defendant through cheque issued by plaintiff bearing No.859861 dated 02.05.2019 and a post-dated cheque dated 20.05.2019 was handed over to the defendant No.1 19 O.S.No.840 of 2021 herein bearing No.859862 dated 20.05.2019. The defendant has not disputed the receipt of amount as stated in the agreement of sale, in fact admits that he has received ₹.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has only disputed that amount is not received as advance sale consideration. But documents on record speaks otherwise. The defendant has also not disputed that cheque dated 20.05.2019 is not en- cashed but admitted that he has received Rs.10,00,000/- and he had paid interest. This clearly shows that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff as narrated in Ex.P.5.
13) The plaintiff has also produced Ex.P.6 endorsement dated 12.06.2020. It is clear from Ex.P.6 endorsement dated 12.06.2020 that ₹.2,00,000/- is received by defendant No.1 as per cheque bearing No.292107 dated 12.06.2020. The endorsement also 20 O.S.No.840 of 2021 shows that the amount is received by the defendant No.1 as additional advance consideration amount as per registered Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019. This payment made by plaintiff is also not disputed by defendant No.1 herein. So, from Ex.P.5, P6 and admission made by defendant No.1 in the written statement it is clear that an amount of ₹.12,00,000/- was received by the defendant No.1 from plaintiff.
14) The defendant is claiming that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is received by him as a loan and not as an advance sale consideration amount. As discussed above, when terms of the contract is proved by producing the document and execution of the document is proved, evidence contradicting that is not permissible but defendant can adduce the evidence to show that under what circumstances he has executed the document. However, in this case 1 st defendant has 21 O.S.No.840 of 2021 not adduced oral or documentary evidence nor cross examined PW.1 to show that the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is executed as a security to secure loan of ₹.10,00,000/- or ₹.12,00,000/-. Therefore, in my considered opinion in the absence of any evidence to show that in what circumstances Ex.P.5- Agreement of sale is executed, this court cannot hold that Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is executed as a security to the loan advance to the defendant No.1. Therefore, in my considered opinion considering the evidence on record execution of Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is proved by plaintiff and as per Agreement of sale defendant No.1 has executed the same with an intention to sell the suit B schedule property for a consideration amount of ₹.25,00,000/- and also received ₹.12,00,000/- as a part consideration amount. Per contra, the defendant No.1 has failed to show that the Agreement of sale was executed to 22 O.S.No.840 of 2021 secure loan of ₹.12,00,000/-, which was agreed to be repaid within 2 years. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affi rmative and issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
15) Issue No.2:- This issue is framed with respect to ready and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. On perusal of Ex.P.5- Agreement of sale, the plaintiff was required to pay an amount of ₹.15,00,000/- towards sale consideration amount. After execution of Agreement of sale ₹.2,00,000/- is paid on 12.06.2020. It is not the case of the defendant that plaintiff is not having any financial capacity to pay the remaining consideration amount of ₹.13,00,000/-. Plaintiff is having financial capacity to pay the amount and the issuance of notice within one year from the agreed date and filing of the suit clearly establishes that plaintiff was ready as well as willing to 23 O.S.No.840 of 2021 get the Sale Deed executed in his favour. Therefore, in my considered opinion considering the conduct of the parties to the suit, plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and defendant No.1 has failed to perform his obligation. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
16) Issue No.4:- This issue is framed with respect to entitlement of relief claimed. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are :
1. Whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property;
2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract;
3. Whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
4. Whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of 24 O.S.No.840 of 2021 specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly,
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
17) That, plaintiff has sought for relief of specific performance of the contract to enforce Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019. While answering Point No.1 to 3 I have concluded that there is valid contract between plaintiff & def.No.1 to sell the suit 'B' property. I have also concluded plaintiff has paid part consideration amount of ₹.12,00,000/- and he is ready & willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants have not adduced any evidence to show that if specific performance of contract is granted then it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant, if so how and in what 25 O.S.No.840 of 2021 manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff.
18) The next point for consideration is when plaintiff has proved execution of agreement of sale, whether court has got discretion to refuse specific performance & grant alternative relief of earnest money. By way of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 20 of the Act has been substituted, thereby rendering the relief of specific performance to be a statutory remedy, instead of a discretionary remedy. Previously, the unamended provision granted the courts, the discretion to deny the relief of specific performance, on the basis of judicially developed exceptions, even where it would otherwise be lawful to direct specific performance. Now, such statutorily created exceptions have been excluded. 2018 Amendment to Specific Relief Act has eliminated the discretion of the courts in cases involving specific performance of contracts and grants a right to an aggrieved party to seek specific performance of a contract in certain cases, subject to the 26 O.S.No.840 of 2021 provisions contained in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act. These Sections deal with 'Cases in which specific performance of contracts connected with trusts being enforceable', 'contracts which cannot be specifically enforced' and 'personal bars to relief,' respectively.
19) Reference may also can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors., A.I.R. 2021 SC 5581 . In the said case, the question as to applicability of the unsubstituted provision of Section 20 of Specific Relief Act on transactions entered into prior to the date on which the Amendment Act of 2018, was kept open. However, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions subsequently substituted, may act as a guide to Courts in exercising discretion in matters dating prior to the substitution, even though such provisions may not apply retrospectively. The relevant observations of Hon'ble Apex Court have been extracted as under:
"10. Now, so far as the finding recorded by the High 27 O.S.No.840 of 2021 Court and the observations made by the High court on Section 20 of the Act and the observation that even if the agreement is found to be duly executed and the plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the Agreement, grant of decree of specific performance is not automatic and it is a discretionary relief is concerned, the same cannot be accepted and/or approved. In such a case, many a times it would be giving a premium to the dishonest conduct on the part of the defendant/executant of the agreement to sell. Even the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. The plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour has been established and proved and that he is found to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant - executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously. 36 For the aforesaid, even amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by which section 10(a) has been inserted, though may not be applicable retrospectively but can be a guide on the discretionary relief. Now the legislature has also thought it to insert Section 10(a) and now the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. As such the question whether the said provision would be applicable retrospectively or not 28 O.S.No.840 of 2021 and/or should be made applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept open. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, the same can be a guide."
20) In B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala and Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 80 Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the amendment made to Section 10 of the Act observed that after the amendment to Section 10, the words "specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the Court, be enforced" have been substituted with the words "specific performance of a contract shall be enforced subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16". It was concluded that although the relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary, after the amendment, the same would still be subject to Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.
29 O.S.No.840 of 2021
21) Applying the law discussed above to the facts of the present dispute, I am of the view that in the absence of discretionary power under Section 20 to deny the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff is entitled to claim specific performance of agreement of sale. The position of law, even following the amendment of 2018 remains that the provisions of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act have to be mandatorily complied with by the party seeking the relief of specific performance. The relief of specific performance cannot be denied in favour of a party who has performed his obligations under the contract & also ready & willing to perform his part of contract.
22) During the pendency of the suit, the developer as a GPA holder of 2 nd defendant has sold the property to defendant No.3 to 5. The Sale Deed is executed on 15.07.2021. The suit is filed on 30 O.S.No.840 of 2021 01.02.2021, there is no injunction order passed by this court restraining the defendants from alienating the property. However, under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, if any alienation made during the pendency of the suit then parties are bound by the decision. It is to be noted that defendant No.2 as a developer as well as GPA holder of defendant No.1 has executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.3 to 5. Plaintiff has also challenged the Sale Deed and sought for declaration that same is not binding upon the plaintiff. During the substances of valid contract, defendants have alienated the property in favour of defendant No.3 to 5. Hence, the defendant No.3 to 5 are also liable to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff along with defendant No.1. Since, 1 st defendant was the admittedly owner of the property, in my considered view when Agreement of sale is proved, passing of consideration is proved and plaintiff 31 O.S.No.840 of 2021 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the specific performance of the contract can be ordered in favour of the plaintiff. Suit is filed within the period of limitation and hence, there is no impediment to grant the decree in favour of the plaintiff herein. Therefore, in my considered view plaintiff has shown all the ingredients which are required to be fulfilled to obtain relief of specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
23) Issue No.5 : In view of the discussion and conclusion arrived at issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with cost. Hence I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
It is ordered and decreed that the defendants are liable to execute 32 O.S.No.840 of 2021 registered sale deed in respect of suit 'B' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of this order by receiving remaining consideration an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as per terms & condition mentioned registered agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 . Failing which plaintiff came get the Sale Deed executed through the process of this court.
It is further ordered and declared
that Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021
executed by 2 nd
defendant in favour of
defendant No.3 to 5 is not binding upon the plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 6 th day of March, 2025.) (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Venkatesh
33 O.S.No.840 of 2021
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
defendant:-
-NIL-
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Khatha certificate dated
16.02.2021
Ex.P.2 Tax assessment extract for the
year 2020-21
Ex.P.3 E.C
Ex.P.4 Offi ce copy of the legal notice
dated 24.10.2020
Ex.P.5 Agreement of sale dated
02.05.2019
Ex.P.6 Endorsement dated
12.06.2020
Ex.P.7 Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021
IV. List of documents exhibited on behalf of
defendants:
-NIL-
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 34 O.S.No.840 of 2021