Bangalore District Court
Dhariwal S Ashok vs Neelavathamma R on 3 January, 2026
KABC010105692005
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 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
O.S. No.377/2005
Plaintiff:- Sri. Dhariwal S.Ashok,
S/o. P.Suganchand,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.8/32, "Sindhoor",
Bull Temple Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore- 560 004
(By Adv. Sri. G.Manivannan)
Vs.
Defendant:- Smt. R.Neelavathamma,
W/o. Late R.M.Siddaiah,
2 O.S. No.377/2005
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.18/1,
7th Main, Samangirama Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(By Adv. Sri. M.Subramani.)
Date of institution of the suit : 13.01.2005
Nature of the suit : Specific Performance
Date of commencement of : 01.02.2011
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 03.01.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
20 11 20
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking decree of specific performance, directing the defendant to execute and register the absolute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule 3 O.S. No.377/2005 property pursuant to Agreement to Sell dated 27.06.2002 and for consequential reliefs.
2. The suit schedule property is:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.18/1, CITB No.275, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 20 feet, situated within Ward No.77 of Bangalore City Corporation, 7th Main, Sampangiramanagar, Bengaluru, consisting of ground, first and second floor building and bounded as follows:
East : Road;
West : Remaining property in the same number;
North : Remaining property in the same number and
South : CITB Site Nos.407 and 403.
3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows;
The plaintiff contends that the defendant, representing herself as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, executed an Agreement to Sell dated 27.06.2002, agreeing to sell the said property for a total consideration of ₹7,25,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that, on the date of the agreement, he paid a sum of ₹7,00,000/- as advance, comprising ₹1,00,000/- 4 O.S. No.377/2005 in cash and ₹6,00,000/- through two cheques and only a sum of ₹25,000/- remained to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, which was agreed to be completed within eight months.
3(a). It is further pleaded that, the defendant handed over original title deeds and undertook to secure updated khatha, encumbrance certificate and tax paid receipts and to vacate the tenant occupying the first floor of the building. The plaintiff asserts that, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. According to him, despite issuance of a legal notice dated 16.01.2003, the defendant avoided execution of sale deed and later demanded additional money citing escalation in property prices, compelling him to file the present suit on 13.01.2005.
4. The case of the defendant is as follows:-
The defendant has filed the detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. She categorically denies execution of any Agreement to Sell dated 27.06.2002 and contends that, the alleged agreement is forged and fabricated. 5 O.S. No.377/2005 Her defence is that, her signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers which were given as security in connection with a hand loan transaction between the plaintiff and her brother - R.Lokanath and the plaintiff has misused the said signatures to create the alleged agreement.
4(a). The defendant further asserts that, the suit schedule property is the joint family property, inherited from her deceased husband and her children are co-owners thereof. Hence, she had no exclusive right or authority to sell the property. She denies receipt of ₹7,00,000/- towards any sale consideration and contends that, the cheques relied upon by the plaintiff were issued in connection with the loan transaction. It is also pleaded that, the defendant was residing at Rampur, Channapatna and the address shown in the plaint and legal notice is incorrect, which resulted in an exparte decree that was later set aside. The defendant alleges suppression of material facts, absence of readiness and willingness and lack of cause of action. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.6 O.S. No.377/2005
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 27.06.2002 the defendant executed a Sale Agreement in his favour by agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of ₹7,20,000/- and received ₹7,00,000/- as earnest money?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff misusing her signature on blank stamp paper got created the Sale Agreement as contended in Para No.17 and 20 of her written statement?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract?
5. What order or decree?
6. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked 7 O.S. No.377/2005 through him and closed his side. On behalf of the defendant, defendant herself has entered into the witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 were marked through her and closed her side.
7. Heard the arguments of plaintiff. The defendant has filed written arguments. The plaintiff has relied on the following case laws in support of his case:-
1. AIR 1950 Madras 90; G.V.Muni Samappa v. Kolala Gurunanjappa (dead) and others.
2. AIR 1975 Rajasthan 69; Deenanath v. Chunnila.
3. 2013 0 Supreme (AP) 414; Tirumalasetty Santhamma and others v. Yenuganti Venkaiah.
4. AIR 2005 SC 2813; Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others.
5. (2024) 11 S.C.R. 667; M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and others.
7(a). The defendant has relied on the following case laws in support of his case:-
1. (1997) 3 SCC 1; K.S.Vidyanadam and others v.
Vairavan.
8 O.S. No.377/2005
2. (1995) 5 SCC 115; N.P.Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs. v. Dr. R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others.
3. (2001) 6 SCC 600; A.C.Arulappan v. Smt.Ahalya Naik.
4. (1999) 5 SCC 77; K.Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.,
5. (2011) 4 SCC 240; H.Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A.Ramalingam.
6. (2011) 12 SCC 18; Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi and others.
8. 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.
Issue No.5: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- The burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to prove due execution of agreement and payment of consideration as required under Sections 101 to 103 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The alleged agreement at Ex.P1 is an unregistered document and significantly, no attesting witness 9 O.S. No.377/2005 or scribe has been examined. PW-1 admitted in the cross- examination that, he did not verify the defendant's title, was unaware of the existence of her children as co-owners and did not verify encumbrances, though Ex.D8 discloses subsisting mortgage during the relevant period.
10. Though Ex.P13 shows issuance of cheques, there is no evidence of encashment or credit of the said amounts into defendant's bank account. There is also no documentary proof whatsoever regarding the alleged cash payment of ₹1,00,000/-. On the other hand, the defendant has consistently denied execution and has produced cogent documentary evidence establishing joint ownership as per Ex.D6 and prior mortgage as per Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. Her evidence has remained unshaken.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.Siddiqui v. A.Ramalingam, [(2011) 4 SCC 240], that mere marking of a document does not amount to proof of its contents, this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove execution of agreement or payment of 10 O.S. No.377/2005 ₹7,00,000/-. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
12. Issue No.2:- Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates continuous readiness and willingness from the date of agreement till the date of decree. In the present case, the legal notice issued by the plaintiff was returned unserved and no further steps were taken thereafter. The balance consideration was not tendered within the stipulated period or even prior to filing of the suit. The suit itself came to be filed nearly three years after the alleged agreement.
13. PW-1 admitted to having purchased other properties during the relevant period, yet failed to produce any material to establish his financial capacity to perform the contract. Mere pleading without supporting conduct is insufficient. In view of the principles laid down in the case of K.S.Vidyanadam v. Vairavan [(1997) 3 SCC 1] and Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi [(2011) 12 SCC 18], the plaintiff has failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
11 O.S. No.377/2005
14. Issue No.3:- The defendant has consistently pleaded that her signatures on blank stamp papers were obtained in connection with a loan transaction involving her brother and the same were misused to fabricate the alleged agreement. This defence is supported by surrounding circumstances, including the joint family nature of the property, existence of prior mortgage, absence of credible evidence of sale negotiations, and the plaintiff's failure to examine independent witnesses.
15. The use of an incorrect address resulting in an exparte decree further casts doubt on the bonafides of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to rebut this defence by acceptable evidence. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.4:- Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. In the present case, execution of agreement is not proved, readiness and willingness are absent, the property is joint family property and the conduct of the plaintiff lacks bonafides. Grant of specific performance would cause undue hardship to the 12 O.S. No.377/2005 defendant. Applying the principles laid down in the case of A.C.Arulappan v. Ahalya Naik [(2001) 6 SCC 600] and K.Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., [(1999) 5 SCC 77], the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
17. Issue No.5: - Though the plaintiff has not specifically sought the alternative relief of refund, this court, in exercise of its power under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, finds that denial of all relief would result in unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to refund ₹7,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 27.06.2002 till realisation, within three months from the date of this judgment. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff for specific performance is hereby dismissed.
The defendant shall refund ₹7,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 9% per annum from 13 O.S. No.377/2005 27.06.2002 till realisation, within three months from the date of this judgment.
In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law.
Costs of the suit are awarded to the defendant.
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 3rd day of January, 2026) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Sri. Dariwal S.Ashok List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Agreement of Sell
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Defendant
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of Plaintiff
14 O.S. No.377/2005
Ex.P1(c) : Signature of Eshwar
Ex.P1(d) : Signature of Raviraj
Ex.P2 : Sale Deed dated 09.09.1965
Ex.P3 : Death Certificate of R.M.Siddaiah
Ex.P4 : Uttara Pathra
Ex.P5 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P6 to 8 : Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P9 : Legal Notice dated 16.01.2003
Ex.P10 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P11 : UCP
Ex.P12 : Unserved RPAD
Ex.P13 : Statement of Accounts
Ex.P14 : Digital copy of Tax Paid Receipt
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 : Smt. Neelavathamma List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D1 : Endorsement dated 11/13.10.1965 Ex.D2 : Mortgage Deed dated 01.06.1966 Ex.D3 : Release Deed dated 01.09.1982 Ex.D4 : Finalisation of Pension Claims Ex.D5 : Canara Bank Passbook Ex.D6 : Certificate of Family Tree Ex.D7 : Residential Certificate Ex.D8 : Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 28.06.1999 Ex.D9 : Discharge Receipt dated 07.04.2002 XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by DASARATHA
DASARATHA BETTAPPA
BETTAPPA Date:
2026.01.03
17:23:30 +0530