High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fact Not Interfered With. Agreement to Sell Not Proved as Plaintiff Failed to Establish Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 12:43:47

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sri Bylamurthy, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court dismissing his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The appellant had sued the respondents, who are the legal representatives of the original owner, seeking enforcement of an alleged agreement to sell immovable property. The trial court, in O.S. No. 1306/2009 (old No. 1465/2008), dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court in R.A. No. 135/2018 confirmed that dismissal. The High Court, while admitting the appeal, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings were perverse or based on no evidence. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents, the High Court found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court noted that the appellant did not demonstrate any perversity or error of law in the concurrent findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgments of the lower courts.

Headnote

A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Courts below concurrently held that plaintiff did not have sufficient funds and did not take steps to perform - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC unless perverse (Paras 2-4).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting the prayer for specific performance of an agreement to sell warrant interference under Section 100 of CPC.

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 25.08.2022 in R.A. No. 135/2018 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 20.08.2018 in O.S. No. 1306/2009 are upheld.

Law Points

Specific performance
Readiness and willingness
Concurrent findings
Section 100 CPC
Interference limited to substantial question of law

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:26796

RSA No. 1457 of 2022 (SP)

2024-07-10

H.P.Sandesh

NC: 2024:KHC:26796

Sri D.L.Jagadeesh (Senior Counsel for appellant), Sri G. Chandrashekharaiah (Advocate for appellant), Not mentioned for respondents

Sri Bylamurthy

Smt. M.G.Gangalakshmamma and others

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought enforcement of an alleged agreement to sell against the respondents.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed that the respondents failed to execute the sale deed despite an agreement.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below rejecting the prayer for specific performance are perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the concurrent findings are erroneous and require interference. Respondents supported the concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of fact, especially regarding readiness and willingness to perform a contract, cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding in rejecting prayer of specific performance. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 1306/2009) which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala on 20.08.2018. The appellant appealed to the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (R.A. No. 135/2018), which was dismissed on 25.08.2022. The appellant then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.