Case Note & Summary
The appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural lands bearing various survey numbers, measuring a total of 28 acres 37 guntas, situated in Thylagere Village, Devanahalli Taluk. The first defendant, Smt. Hanumakka, was the absolute owner. The plaintiff, H.A. Sonnappa, claimed that on 05.11.1990, she executed an agreement to sell the schedule property to him for Rs.3,47,100/-, receiving an advance of Rs.1,75,000/- and delivering possession. The plaintiff alleged readiness and willingness, and that the first defendant evaded execution of the sale deed. He claimed to have developed the land by investing money. The first defendant, in her written statement, admitted the agreement but contended that only Rs.75,000/- was paid, and the document was tampered to show Rs.1,75,000/- and to extend the time for performance from 3 months to 13 months. She claimed the agreement was cancelled and advance returned. She also sold portions to defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 2 purchased from a power of attorney holder after revocation; defendants 3 and 4 purchased directly from the first defendant in 1992. The plaintiff amended the plaint to implead them, asserting the sales were void ab initio and collusive to defeat his rights. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance. The appeals preferred by defendants 2, 3, and 4 challenge that decree. The High Court's reasoning and final decision are not contained in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (10) 16
RFA No. 1242/2003 c/w RFA No. 1312/2003 and Misc. Civil No. 13365/2010
N. Kumar, V. Suri Appa Rao
Udaya Holla (Sr. Counsel), Dayanand S. Naik, B.V. Acharya (Sr. Counsel), Chouta, S. Vijayashankar (Sr. Counsel), T. Seshagiri Rao, Sunil S. Rao
Smt Padmini Raghavan, Smt Lakshmi Thamaiah, Sri V.T. Anand
H.A. Sonnappa (since dead by LRs), Smt Hanumakka (since dead by LR)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural lands
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance directing defendants to jointly execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the suit schedule property
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that the first defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite payment of advance and readiness to pay balance, and had subsequently sold portions to others to defeat his rights
Previous Decisions
Trial court (II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Bangalore Rural District) decreed the suit on 10.07.2003, granting specific performance. The present appeals challenge that decree.
Judgment Excerpts
the plaintiff has developed the land by investing huge lot of money i.e., he has raised mango groves and he has also leveled the entire land by using the bulldozer
the said sale deeds are void ab initio
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 316/93 for specific performance. During pendency, he impleaded subsequent purchasers as defendants 2 to 4. Trial court decreed the suit on 10.07.2003. Defendants 2 to 4 filed appeals RFA 1242/2003 and 1312/2003. During appeals, original plaintiff and first defendant died, and their legal representatives were brought on record. A miscellaneous application for additional documents was also filed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1, Order I Rule 10(2)
