High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Concurrent Findings of Trial and First Appellate Court Upheld. Agreement of Sale Proved by Plaintiff, Defendants Failed to Discharge Burden of Proof Under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 19:24:10

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellants (defendants) filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in favor of the respondent (plaintiff). The suit property was agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants executed a registered agreement of sale on 10.06.2015 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-, received an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and agreed to execute the sale deed within one year. The defendants failed to perform despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The defendants denied the agreement and contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree. In the second appeal, the appellants argued that the courts below erred in not considering that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence, including the registered agreement and the plaintiff's testimony. The court noted that the defendants did not examine themselves or any witness to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. The court found no perversity or illegality in the findings and concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Burden of Proof - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract; the defendant must prove any failure. In this case, the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement and payment of advance; the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff was not ready and willing. Held that the concurrent findings of fact are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not give rise to any substantial question of law (Paras 2-6).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting specific performance of the agreement of sale suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC.

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 08.12.2022 in R.A. No. 17/2022 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 24.02.2022 in O.S. No. 12/2018 are upheld. No order as to costs.

Law Points

Specific performance
burden of proof
concurrent findings
substantial question of law
Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
1963
Section 100 CPC

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 56

RSA No. 681 of 2023 (SP)

2024-07-01

H.P. Sandesh

Sri K. Shrihari (for appellants), Sri Gangadharaiah A.N. (for respondent)

Smt. Lalithamma and Kum. Jayashree

Sri A.D. Govindaiah

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land.

Remedy Sought

The plaintiff sought a decree directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property.

Filing Reason

The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving advance consideration and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 24.02.2022 in O.S. No. 12/2018; the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 08.12.2022 in R.A. No. 17/2022, confirming the decree.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting specific performance suffer from any perversity or illegality? Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the suit was barred by limitation. Respondent argued that the agreement was proved and the defendants failed to discharge their burden of proof.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the agreement and his readiness and willingness. Once the plaintiff adduces evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove any failure. Concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC unless a substantial question of law arises.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trial Court has considered both oral and documentary evidence and granted the relief of specific performance and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the material on record confirmed the same. The defendants have not stepped into the witness box to substantiate their defence. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the defendants have not examined any witnesses. I do not find any perversity in the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 12/2018 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, seeking specific performance. The suit was decreed on 24.02.2022. The defendants appealed in R.A. No. 17/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, which was dismissed on 08.12.2022. The defendants then filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.