Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddagangappa vs Sri Jagannatha on 31 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5470
RFA No. 2018 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2018 OF 2018 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDAGANGAPPA
S/O.LATE RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION
SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAGANNATHA
S/O.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
2. SMT.VANAJAKSHMMA
W/O.JAGANNATH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 3. MUDDAHANUMEGOWDA
PRAMILA G V S/O.JAGANNATH
Location: AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
HIGH COURT
OF ALL ARE R/AT
KARNATAKA DWARALU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KAMARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5470
RFA No. 2018 of 2018
HC-KAR
SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2013 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, SIRA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance of contract. The suit is decreed for the alternative relief and the Trial Court directed the defendants to refund the earnest money of ₹2,25,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the decree for declining the specific performance of the contract. The defendants have accepted the decree.
2. The facts stated by the plaintiff are as under:
The defendants executed registered an agreement for sale dated 27.04.2013 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Out of the sale consideration amount of ₹11,25,000/-, the defendants received earnest money of ₹1,25,000/- on the date of agreement and received a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on 11.06.2013. The agreement stipulates that the defendants have to repay the loan amount on the said -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR property and have to obtain proper sketch for due execution of the sale deed, and thereafter, within three months, have to execute the sale deed.
3. The plaintiff claims that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the defendants refused to execute the sale deed. Despite legal notice dated 20.09.2013 being served on the defendants, they did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit is filed on 09.10.2013.
4. The defendants contested the suit and denied the execution of agreement for sale and also denied that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants also disputed the capacity of the plaintiff to purchase the property for valuable consideration amount of ₹11,25,000/- and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. In addition, the defendants also raised the contention that the suit property is a joint family property and the daughters of defendant No.1 namely, Naveena and Priyanka are also having share in the property and they not -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR being the signatories to the said agreement for sale, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief.
6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have executed an agreement of sale in his favour on 27.03.2013 and received an earnest money of Rs.1,25,000/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint?
4. What Order or Decree?"
7. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the agreement for sale dated 27.04.2013 is duly proved. It has also held that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the suit is not decreed for specific performance of the contract on the premise that the daughters of defendant No.1 have share in the property, as per the decree in O.S.No.359/2013.
8. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-appellant would urge that after having recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved the agreement for sale and he was ready and willing to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR perform his part of contract, the Trial Court ought to have granted a decree for specific performance. It is his further submission that the suit in O.S.No.359/2013 filed by the daughters against defendants No.1, 2 and 3 is a collusive suit. To the said suit, the plaintiff has not been made as a party and in the said suit, the properties are partitioned by allotting the share to the daughters and collusive decree could not be the ground for the Trial Court to decline the relief of specific performance.
9. It is urged that the Trial Court could not have given weightage to the collusive decree which was intended to defraud the plaintiff who had the right to seek specific performance based on the registered agreement for sale dated 27.04.2013. Learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant would urge that the decree be set aside and the decree for specific performance be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No.1 to 3.
10. Learned counsel appearing for defendants- respondents would urge that the daughters, in fact, filed a suit much earlier to the suit for specific performance of the contract -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR and in the said suit, the family members entered into a settlement. The said settlement is lawful and in the said settlement, the property in question is allotted to the share of one of the daughters, namely, Priyanka and the same being lawful, the Trial Court is justified in declining the relief of specific performance.
11. In addition, learned counsel for defendants would also urge that the finding on the readiness and willingness recorded by the Trial Court is untenable. The Trial Court has not considered as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The burden was on the plaintiff. However, the Trial Court has proceeded to hold that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the premise that the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
12. It is also urged that, since the defendants seriously disputed the plaintiff's capacity to purchase the property, the Trial Court could not have held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract when the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence relating to his financial capacity. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR
13. It is also urged that the defendants have taken a specific contention that the plaintiff wanted to sell the property to someone else and from the said sale consideration amount, he wanted to repay the balance sale consideration amount mentioned in the alleged agreement for sale and that being the position, readiness and willingness to perform the contract cannot be said to be established.
14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
15. The following points arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether the plaintiff-appellant is able to establish that the suit for specific performance ought to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the defendants establish that the finding of the Trial Court on the issue relating to readiness and willingness is erroneous?"
16. The admitted factual position is when the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.09.2013 demanding specific performance of contract. The defendants replied to the same indicating that their two daughters are having the share in the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR property. Despite this, the plaintiff has not chosen to implead the daughters of defendant No.1 as parties to the proceedings.
17. It is also noticed that the daughters had already filed a suit for partition, by that time, the suit for specific performance was filed. The said partition suit ended in compromise and in the said compromise, the suit property is allotted to the share of one of the daughters namely, Priyanka. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a party to the said proceeding. Thus, the decree that is passed in OS.No.359/2013 does not bind the plaintiff as such. However, it appears that the properties are ancestral properties and there is no dispute on this point. In that view of the matter, the daughters of defendant No.1 have share in the ancestral properties because no previous partition is pleaded or established by the plaintiff.
18. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for partition and specific performance to grant a decree in respect of the shares held by defendants No.1 to 3. To that extent, the suit is defective. However, it has been noticed that defendants No.1 to 3 have made a claim that they are the owners of the property when -9- NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR the agreement was executed and said agreement is duly registered. When the suit for specific performance was filed, the suit for partition filed by one of the daughters was still pending consideration. Probably, that was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint and seek partition against defendants No.1 to 3, who are the executors of the agreement for sale dated 27.04.2013.
19. The Court has also considered the finding of the Trial Court on the issue relating to readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of contract. As can be noticed, the Trial Court has decided the said issue as if the burden was on the defendants. The burden was in fact on the plaintiff to establish that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is also noticed that in the cross-examination, the defendants have seriously disputed the plaintiff's financial capacity to purchase the property by paying balance consideration amount. No evidence is led to hold that the plaintiff was possessing the financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration amount.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR
20. Since, the plaintiff was not aware of the decree in favour of one of the daughters of defendant No.1, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek partition and specific performance. In such an event, the defendants should be permitted to file additional written statement and daughters of defendant No.1 should be permitted to participate in the suit.
21. It is also noticed that the defendants No.1 to 3 have not questioned the decree for refund of the earnest money despite the finding that the agreement for sale is proved. Under these circumstances, defendants No.1 to 3 cannot be permitted to deny the execution of the agreement for sale. However, the defendants can contest the contention relating to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract.
22. In the light of the aforementioned discussions, the Court is of the view that the finding relating to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract requires reconsideration and the matter requires to be remanded for this purpose. Hence, the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5470
RFA No. 2018 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed in
O.S.No.56/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sira, are set-aside in part;
iii) The finding relating to proof of execution of agreement for sale on issue No.1 is affirmed;
iv) The finding relating to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract is set aside;
v) The decree for refund of money is also set aside;
vi) The plaintiff is permitted to implead the daughters of defendant No.1 as parties to the proceedings;
vii) The plaintiff is also permitted to make necessary amendment seeking partition of the schedule property to the extent of share of defendants No.1 to 3.
However, it is made clear that decree for partition and specific performance of share of defendants No.1 to 3 can be passed, provided the plaintiff is able to establish readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract;
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR
viii) It is made clear that defendants No.1 to 3 are not permitted to contest the finding relating to execution of agreement dated 27.04.2013 on issue No.1, so also, the daughters to be impleaded. The presence of the daughters is necessary because in the event of a decree for partition and separate possession and specific performance of the contract to the extent of the share of defendants No.1 to 3, the daughters of defendant No.1 will have a say in the final decree proceeding.
ix) The amount deposited by the defendants shall be returned to the defendants along with interest, if any after due identification;
x) The Court fee paid in appeal shall be refunded to the plaintiff-appellant;
xi) Registry to send back the original records to the jurisdictional Trial Court.
xii) It is made clear that observations made above, should not be construed as having held that there has to be a decree for specific performance to the extent of the share of the defendants No.1 to 3. Whether the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5470 RFA No. 2018 of 2018 HC-KAR plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance to the extent of share of defendants No.1 to 3 shall be subject to the proof relating to readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract and fulfillment of other considerations available under law.
xiii) The parties to the proceedings are permitted to lead evidence on the issue relating to readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22