Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh vs Byregowda S on 6 March, 2025
KABC010026212021
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
O.S.No.840/2021
Plaintiff:- Sri. Venkatesh,
Aged about 67 years,
S/o D. Muniyappa,
R/at No.301/4, S.L.V.
Mansion, Kacharakanahalli,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru-560 084.
(By Sri.G. Krishnappa.,
Advocate)
-vs-
2 O.S.No.840 of 2021
Defendants:- 1. Sri. S. Byregowda,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late M. Srinivas,
R/at No.5, Shaneshwara
Temple Road, Hennur Cross,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 043.
2. M/s. V2 Constructions
A Partnership Firm having its
Offi ce at No.11/2, B Jehiel, 1 st
Floor, 1 st Main Road, Hennur
Gardens,
Kalyannagar, Hennur Bande
Bengaluru-560 043.
Represented by it's Managing
Partners.
(a) Mr. L.T. COL. A.C.
Belliappa,
S/o Late Sri. A.C. Chengappa,
Aged about 58 years
(b) Mr. C. Srinivas
Aged about 35 years
S/o Sri. Chandrappa
3. Mr. N. Jagannath
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri. Narasimha Reddy
Vakati
4. Mr. Thilak Kumar N
Aged about 34 years
S/o Sri. Narasimha Reddy
Vakati
3 O.S.No.840 of 2021
No.3 and 4 are residing at
No.7/1, 1 st Floor, 3 rd Cross,
Thammanna Layout,
Lingarajapuram,
Bengaluru-84.
5. Mr. V.J. Eliza Beth
Aged about 42 years
S/o Sri. V.C. Josepth
Residing at Hebbettageri
Village, K. Nidugane Post,
Madikere Taluk, Kodagu,
Karnataka-571 201.
(D1 to D5- Sri.K.V.S.,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 01.02.2021
suit
Nature of the Suit : Specific Performance
Date of commencement of : 20.01.2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 06.03.2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
04 01 05
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
4 O.S.No.840 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
That, plaintiff has filed this suit for specific
performance of the contract to enforce agreement of
sale dated 02.05.2019. The suit schedule property is
non-agricultural land a flat in 1 st floor of ‘A’ schedule
property. The plaintiff has also sought for declaration
to declare that Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021 executed
by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 to 5 is
not binding upon the plaintiff.
Schedule property described in the plaint is as
under:-
Schedule A
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing
House List No.114, Old Khata No.15, Byatarayanapura
CMC NO.114/2, Khatha No.112/123/125-114, BBMP
Khatha No.112/123/125-144-2, situated at Hennur
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now
comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, measuring East to
5 O.S.No.840 of 2021West 52 feet and North to South 62 feet in all
measuring 3224 square feet and bounded on the:-
East by: Hennur Village Road,
West by: Muralidhar's property and
North by: Nagaraj's property
South by: Road
Schedule B
First floor portion constructed on the A schedule
property Flat No.F-1B, measuring Super Builtup Area
800 Square feet with car parking proportionate
undivided share on the A schedule property bounded
on the:
East by: Hennur Village
West by: Private property
North by: Private property
South by: Road
2) The facts pleaded necessary for the
disposal of this suit in nutshell are stated as
under:-
a) That, the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 is
the owner of residential property bearing House list
6 O.S.No.840 of 2021No.114, old katha No.15, Byatarayanapura CMC and
bearing katha No.112/123/125/114 situated at Hennur
Village, which is described as schedule ‘A’. Defendant
No.1 has obtained plan and license from BBMP to
construct a four floors residential building in suit ‘A’
schedule property. It is submitted by the plaintiff that
defendant No.1 has agreed to sell a flat numbered as F-
1B in first floor constructed on the schedule ‘A’
property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration
amount of ₹.25,00,000/-. It is submitted by the plaintiff
that in order to evidence the transactions defendant
No.1 has executed an agreement of sale on 02.05.2019
agreeing to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff.
Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is registered in
the offi ce of Sub-registrar Bengaluru and as on the date
of agreement the defendant No.1 has received part
consideration amount of ₹.10,00,000/-. Details of
payment made are as under:
7 O.S.No.840 of 2021
1) Rs. 2,80,000/- through RTGS No.2456101005909
dated 30.04.2019 through plaintiff’s account i.e.,
Canara Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
2) Rs. 2,20,000/- under cheque bearing No.859861
dated 02.05.2019 drawn on Canara Bank,
Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
3) Rs.5,00,000/- under cheque bearing No.859862
dated 20.05.2019 drawn on Canara Bank,
Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru.
b) The plaintiff submits that on 12.06.2020
defendant No.1 has received further advance
consideration amount of ₹.2,00,000/- through RTGS
under cheque bearing No.292107 drawn on Canara
Bank, Kalyananagar Branch, Bengaluru. It is submitted
by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 has undertaken to
execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of ‘B’
schedule property on or before 10.08.2020 and receive
remaining consideration amount of ₹.12,00,000/-.
c) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on
several occasions plaintiff requested the defendant
8 O.S.No.840 of 2021No.1 to execute the Sale Deed but, the defendant has
not came forward to execute the Sale Deed by
receiving balance consideration amount. It is specific
case of the plaintiff that he had suffi cient funds in his
hands to pay the balance consideration amount & to
get the Sale Deed registered and was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff
submits that defendant No.1 is not ready to abide by
the conditions of Agreement of sale and as such,
plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 24.10.2020 calling
upon the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in
respect of ‘B’ schedule property. The plaintiff submits
that the legal notice came to be returned unserved.
The plaintiff by way of an amendment has added a
paragraphs stating that 1 st defendant after execution of
agreement of sale in collusion with 2 nd defendant
entered into a joint development agreement and on the
basis of the joint development Agreement defendants
9 O.S.No.840 of 2021
have changed earlier plan. It is submitted by the
plaintiff that 2 nd defendant has executed a registered
Sale Deed on 15.07.2021 in favour of defendant No.3 to
5. It is specific case of the plaintiff that 1 st defendant
and 2 nd defendant with an intention to make wrongful
gain have changed the earlier plan and on the basis of
new plan 2 nd defendant has executed a registered Sale
Deed during the substance of registered agreement of
sale executed by 1 st defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff has contended that the suit for
specific performance has been filed in order to enforce
the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019.
3) a. In response to the suit summons issued,
the 1 st defendant has appeared and contested the suit
by filing written statement. The 1 st defendant in the
written statement has admitted his ownership of over
the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property. However, the
defendant has contended that he had no intention to
10 O.S.No.840 of 2021
sell the schedule property to the plaintiff. It is
submitted by the defendant that in the year 2019 1 st
defendant intending to complete construction work of
apartment and since plaintiff was well known to
defendant for past several years, he approached the
plaintiff to advance hand loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. The
defendant has contended that at the time of advancing
hand loan plaintiff agreed to pay the loan with interest
at the rate of 2% per month and demanded to execute
a nominal agreement of sale in respect of suit ‘B’
schedule property as a security. It is submitted by the
defendant No.1 that he believing the words of plaintiff
had executed a nominal agreement of sale on
02.05.2019 but, agreement of sale is executed as a
security to obtain loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. It is submitted
by the defendant No.1 that the loan was agreed to be
repaid within 2 years and thereafter, defendant No.1
had paid interest to the plaintiff regularly as agreed
11 O.S.No.840 of 2021
and as assured by him. It is further submitted by the
defendant No.1 that again some financial crisis arose
for completion of apartment and as such, once again
defendant has obtained hand loan of ₹.2,00,000/- on
12.06.2020 from the plaintiff and also issued two blank
cheques bearing No.316019 and 316020in favour of the
plaintiff.
b) It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that
plaintiff has suppressed material facts and filed this
false suit to grab the valuable property belongs to the
defendant No.1. It is submitted by the defendant No.1
that he never ever intended to sell the schedule
property and agreement of sale was executed as a
nominal document for security towards repayment of
hand loan. The defendant No.1 submits that he is ready
to return hand loan amount of ₹.12,00,000/- to the
plaintiff, however, the plaintiff with malafide intention
to grab the valuable property belonging to defendant
12 O.S.No.840 of 2021
has filed this suit for specific performance of the
contract and therefore, defendant has contended that
suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4) The defendant No.2 to 5 have though
appeared have not contested the suit by filing the
written statement.
5) By considering pleadings and documents
produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in
offi ce had framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant has executed registered
agreement of sale dt:02.05.2019 by
receiving advance sale consideration
of Rs.12,00,000/- out of total sale
consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- in
respect of ‘B’ schedule property as
alleged in plaint para No.4 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is / was ever
ready and willing perform his part of
13 O.S.No.840 of 2021contract ?
3. Whether the defendants prove that
they have executed a nominal
agreement of sale for security
purpose for the hand loan of
Rs.12,00,000/- borrowed from the
plaintiff and agreed to return the said
amount within 2 years as contended
in para 8 of the written statement ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the
relief sought for ?
5. What Order or decree ?
6) In order to prove the burden cast upon the
plaintiff to prove above said issues, plaintiff got himself
examined as P.W.1 and he was produced 7 documents.
The defendants have not cross examined PW.1. The
defendants have also not adduced oral or documentary
evidence in support of their claim.
14 O.S.No.840 of 2021
7) I have considered the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the plaintiff to the suit in light of
the arguments advanced before me and my findings on
the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.2: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: Plaintiff is entitled for
the relief claimed
Issue No.5: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
8) Issue Nos.1 and 3 :- That, these two
issues are with respect to execution of agreement of
sale, nature of the document and defence taken by the
defendant No.1 that Agreement of sale was executed
for securing loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. These issues are
interconnected & in order to avoid repetition they have
been dealt together.
15 O.S.No.840 of 2021
9) The plaintiff has filed this suit for specific
performance of the contract to enforce the Agreement
of sale dated 02.05.2019. The defendant No.1 has
appeared and admitted the execution of the Agreement
of sale but contended that the Agreement of sale is a
nominal document executed for securing loan of
₹.10,00,000/-. So, it is necessary for the plaintiff to
show that the Agreement of sale is duly executed with
an intention to sell the property. The “execution” of a
document does not stand admitted merely because a
person admits to having signed the document. while
“signing a document” simply refers to the act of putting
your signature on a document, “execution of a
document” means not only signing it but also signifying
full understanding and agreement with the terms within
the document, essentially making it legally
binding; Hence, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show
that the Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 was
16 O.S.No.840 of 2021
executed with an intention to sell the schedule
property.
10) In order to establish due execution of
Agreement of sale and the intention to execute the
document the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1.
PW.1 has reiterated the contents of the Ex.P.5-
Agreement of sale. PW.1 has categorically stated that
defendant with an intention to sell the property has
executed the Agreement of sale. The testimony of PW-
1 regarding defendant No.1’s intention to sell the
property, negotiation and execution of agreement of
sale is not denied. There is nothing available one
record to disbelieve the version of plaintiff.
11) I have perused the Agreement of sale dated
02.05.2019 in detail. It is clear from the recitals made
in the Agreement of sale that the defendant has
executed the document agreeing to sell the schedule
17 O.S.No.840 of 2021
property to the plaintiff herein. Under Section 92 of
Evidence Act, prohibits oral evidence to contradict,
vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written
document. This section applies to contracts, grants,
and other documents that are required to be in writing.
When terms of the contract is proved by producing the
document as required under sec.91 of Evidence Act,
then oral evidence contradicting the terms of the
contract is inadmissible in evidence. The defendant
No.1 has admitted the execution of the Agreement of
sale and only contended that same was executed to
secure loan of ₹.10,00,000/-. However the defendant
No.1 can lead oral evidence by admitting terms of
document, to show in what circumstance document –
agreement is executed by him. Defendant No.1 has not
adduced any evidence to show that there was a
transaction of hand loan between plaintiff and
defendant and in order to evidence the loan
18 O.S.No.840 of 2021
transaction, Agreement of sale is executed as a
nominal document. There is no cross-examination of
PW.1 in this regard and hence, in my considered
opinion when execution of Agreement of sale dated
02.05.2019 is proved by oral evidence of PW-1, its
terms of agreement is also proved to the satisfaction of
the court. If terms of Agreement of sale is considered
then defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the schedule
property to the plaintiff herein for a consideration
amount of ₹.25,00,000/-.
12) The Agreement of sale shows that an amount
of Rs.2,80,000/- is transferred to the account of 1 st
defendant through RTGS on 30.04.2019, an amount of
Rs.2,20,000/- is transferred in favour of defendant
through cheque issued by plaintiff bearing No.859861
dated 02.05.2019 and a post-dated cheque dated
20.05.2019 was handed over to the defendant No.1
19 O.S.No.840 of 2021
herein bearing No.859862 dated 20.05.2019. The
defendant has not disputed the receipt of amount as
stated in the agreement of sale, in fact admits that he
has received ₹.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The
defendant No.1 has only disputed that amount is not
received as advance sale consideration. But documents
on record speaks otherwise. The defendant has also
not disputed that cheque dated 20.05.2019 is not en-
cashed but admitted that he has received
Rs.10,00,000/- and he had paid interest. This clearly
shows that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid to the
defendant No.1 by the plaintiff as narrated in Ex.P.5.
13) The plaintiff has also produced Ex.P.6
endorsement dated 12.06.2020. It is clear from Ex.P.6
endorsement dated 12.06.2020 that ₹.2,00,000/- is
received by defendant No.1 as per cheque bearing
No.292107 dated 12.06.2020. The endorsement also
20 O.S.No.840 of 2021
shows that the amount is received by the defendant
No.1 as additional advance consideration amount as
per registered Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019.
This payment made by plaintiff is also not disputed by
defendant No.1 herein. So, from Ex.P.5, P6 and
admission made by defendant No.1 in the written
statement it is clear that an amount of ₹.12,00,000/-
was received by the defendant No.1 from plaintiff.
14) The defendant is claiming that the amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- is received by him as a loan and not as
an advance sale consideration amount. As discussed
above, when terms of the contract is proved by
producing the document and execution of the
document is proved, evidence contradicting that is not
permissible but defendant can adduce the evidence to
show that under what circumstances he has executed
the document. However, in this case 1 st defendant has
21 O.S.No.840 of 2021
not adduced oral or documentary evidence nor cross
examined PW.1 to show that the Agreement of sale
dated 02.05.2019 is executed as a security to secure
loan of ₹.10,00,000/- or ₹.12,00,000/-. Therefore, in
my considered opinion in the absence of any evidence
to show that in what circumstances Ex.P.5- Agreement
of sale is executed, this court cannot hold that
Agreement of sale dated 02.05.2019 is executed as a
security to the loan advance to the defendant No.1.
Therefore, in my considered opinion considering the
evidence on record execution of Agreement of sale
dated 02.05.2019 is proved by plaintiff and as per
Agreement of sale defendant No.1 has executed the
same with an intention to sell the suit B schedule
property for a consideration amount of ₹.25,00,000/-
and also received ₹.12,00,000/- as a part consideration
amount. Per contra, the defendant No.1 has failed to
show that the Agreement of sale was executed to
22 O.S.No.840 of 2021
secure loan of ₹.12,00,000/-, which was agreed to be
repaid within 2 years. Accordingly, issue No.1 is
answered in the Affi rmative and issue No.3 is answered
in the Negative.
15) Issue No.2:- This issue is framed with
respect to ready and willingness of plaintiff to perform
his part of the contract. On perusal of Ex.P.5-
Agreement of sale, the plaintiff was required to pay an
amount of ₹.15,00,000/- towards sale consideration
amount. After execution of Agreement of sale
₹.2,00,000/- is paid on 12.06.2020. It is not the case of
the defendant that plaintiff is not having any financial
capacity to pay the remaining consideration amount of
₹.13,00,000/-. Plaintiff is having financial capacity to
pay the amount and the issuance of notice within one
year from the agreed date and filing of the suit clearly
establishes that plaintiff was ready as well as willing to
23 O.S.No.840 of 2021
get the Sale Deed executed in his favour. Therefore, in
my considered opinion considering the conduct of the
parties to the suit, plaintiff is ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract and defendant No.1
has failed to perform his obligation. Accordingly this
issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
16) Issue No.4:- This issue is framed with
respect to entitlement of relief claimed. The material
questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of
the relief of specific performance, are :
1. Whether there exists a valid and concluded
contract between the parties for sale/purchase of
the suit property;
2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to
perform his part of contract and whether he is still
ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned
in the contract;
3. Whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his
part of the contract and, if so, how and to what
extent and in what manner he has performed and
whether such performance was in conformity with
the terms of the contract;
4. Whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of
24 O.S.No.840 of 2021specific performance to the plaintiff against the
defendant in relation to suit property or it will
cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if
so, how and in what manner and the extent if such
relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and
lastly,
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any
other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest
money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
17) That, plaintiff has sought for relief of specific
performance of the contract to enforce Agreement of
sale dated 02.05.2019. While answering Point No.1 to
3 I have concluded that there is valid contract between
plaintiff & def.No.1 to sell the suit ‘B’ property. I have
also concluded plaintiff has paid part consideration
amount of ₹.12,00,000/- and he is ready & willing to
perform his part of the contract. The defendants have
not adduced any evidence to show that if specific
performance of contract is granted then it will cause any
kind of hardship to the defendant, if so how and in what
25 O.S.No.840 of 2021
manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted
to the plaintiff.
18) The next point for consideration is when plaintiff
has proved execution of agreement of sale, whether court
has got discretion to refuse specific performance & grant
alternative relief of earnest money. By way of the Specific
Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 20 of the Act has
been substituted, thereby rendering the relief of specific
performance to be a statutory remedy, instead of a
discretionary remedy. Previously, the unamended provision
granted the courts, the discretion to deny the relief of
specific performance, on the basis of judicially developed
exceptions, even where it would otherwise be lawful to
direct specific performance. Now, such statutorily created
exceptions have been excluded. 2018 Amendment to
Specific Relief Act has eliminated the discretion of the
courts in cases involving specific performance of contracts
and grants a right to an aggrieved party to seek specific
performance of a contract in certain cases, subject to the
26 O.S.No.840 of 2021
provisions contained in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the
Act. These Sections deal with ‘Cases in which specific
performance of contracts connected with trusts being
enforceable’, ‘contracts which cannot be specifically
enforced’ and ‘personal bars to relief,’ respectively.
19) Reference may also can be made to the decision
of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh
(Dead) through LRs and Ors., A.I.R. 2021 SC 5581 . In
the said case, the question as to applicability of the
unsubstituted provision of Section 20 of Specific Relief Act
on transactions entered into prior to the date on which the
Amendment Act of 2018, was kept open. However, Hon’ble
Apex Court held that the provisions subsequently
substituted, may act as a guide to Courts in exercising
discretion in matters dating prior to the substitution, even
though such provisions may not apply retrospectively. The
relevant observations of Hon’ble Apex Court have been
extracted as under:
“10. Now, so far as the finding recorded by the High
27 O.S.No.840 of 2021Court and the observations made by the High court
on Section 20 of the Act and the observation that
even if the agreement is found to be duly executed
and the plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to
perform his part of the Agreement, grant of decree
of specific performance is not automatic and it is a
discretionary relief is concerned, the same cannot
be accepted and/or approved. In such a case, many
a times it would be giving a premium to the
dishonest conduct on the part of the
defendant/executant of the agreement to sell. Even
the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required
to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably.
The plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the
relief of specific performance despite the fact that
the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour
has been established and proved and that he is
found to be always ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract. Not to grant the decree of
specific performance despite the execution of the
agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration
is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract would encourage
the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance
should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in
favour of the defendant – executant of the
agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion
judiciously. 36 For the aforesaid, even amendment
to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by which section
10(a) has been inserted, though may not be
applicable retrospectively but can be a guide on the
discretionary relief. Now the legislature has also
thought it to insert Section 10(a) and now the
specific performance is no longer a discretionary
relief. As such the question whether the said
provision would be applicable retrospectively or not
28 O.S.No.840 of 2021and/or should be made applicable to all pending
proceedings including appeals is kept open.
However, at the same time, as observed
hereinabove, the same can be a guide.”
20) In B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala and
Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 80 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the amendment made to Section 10 of the
Act observed that after the amendment to Section 10,
the words “specific performance of any contract may,
in the discretion of the Court, be enforced” have been
substituted with the words “specific performance of a
contract shall be enforced subject to the provisions
contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14
and Section 16“. It was concluded that although the
relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer
discretionary, after the amendment, the same would
still be subject to Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16
of the Specific Relief Act.
29 O.S.No.840 of 2021
21) Applying the law discussed above to the facts
of the present dispute, I am of the view that in the
absence of discretionary power under Section 20 to
deny the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff is
entitled to claim specific performance of agreement of
sale. The position of law, even following the
amendment of 2018 remains that the provisions of
Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act have to be
mandatorily complied with by the party seeking the
relief of specific performance. The relief of specific
performance cannot be denied in favour of a party who
has performed his obligations under the contract & also
ready & willing to perform his part of contract.
22) During the pendency of the suit, the
developer as a GPA holder of 2 nd defendant has sold the
property to defendant No.3 to 5. The Sale Deed is
executed on 15.07.2021. The suit is filed on
30 O.S.No.840 of 2021
01.02.2021, there is no injunction order passed by this
court restraining the defendants from alienating the
property. However, under Section 52 of Transfer of
Property Act, if any alienation made during the
pendency of the suit then parties are bound by the
decision. It is to be noted that defendant No.2 as a
developer as well as GPA holder of defendant No.1 has
executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.3 to 5.
Plaintiff has also challenged the Sale Deed and sought
for declaration that same is not binding upon the
plaintiff. During the substances of valid contract,
defendants have alienated the property in favour of
defendant No.3 to 5. Hence, the defendant No.3 to 5
are also liable to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the
plaintiff along with defendant No.1. Since, 1 st
defendant was the admittedly owner of the property,
in my considered view when Agreement of sale is
proved, passing of consideration is proved and plaintiff
31 O.S.No.840 of 2021
was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract then the specific performance of the contract
can be ordered in favour of the plaintiff. Suit is filed
within the period of limitation and hence, there is no
impediment to grant the decree in favour of the
plaintiff herein. Therefore, in my considered view
plaintiff has shown all the ingredients which are
required to be fulfilled to obtain relief of specific
performance of the contract. Accordingly, this issue is
answered in favour of the plaintiff.
23) Issue No.5 : In view of the discussion and
conclusion arrived at issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit of the
plaintiff is liable to be decreed with cost. Hence I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed
with cost.
It is ordered and decreed that the
defendants are liable to execute
32 O.S.No.840 of 2021registered sale deed in respect of suit
‘B’ schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff within 6 months from the date
of this order by receiving remaining
consideration an amount of
Rs.13,00,000/- as per terms & condition
mentioned registered agreement of sale
dated 02.05.2019 . Failing which plaintiff
came get the Sale Deed executed
through the process of this court.
It is further ordered and declared
that Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021
executed by 2 nd
defendant in favour of
defendant No.3 to 5 is not binding upon
the plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript
thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me,
in open Court, on this the 6 th day of March, 2025.)(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BengaluruANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Venkatesh
33 O.S.No.840 of 2021
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
defendant:-
-NIL-
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Khatha certificate dated
16.02.2021
Ex.P.2 Tax assessment extract for the
year 2020-21
Ex.P.3 E.C
Ex.P.4 Offi ce copy of the legal notice
dated 24.10.2020
Ex.P.5 Agreement of sale dated
02.05.2019
Ex.P.6 Endorsement dated
12.06.2020
Ex.P.7 Sale Deed dated 15.07.2021
IV. List of documents exhibited on behalf of
defendants:
-NIL-
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
34 O.S.No.840 of 2021