Karnataka High Court
Mr Edward Lewis vs Mr Arjuna K on 18 December, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2011 (SP)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1498 OF 2011
IN R.F.A No.1867 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1 . ARJUNA K
S/O LATE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2 . SMT. REKHA
W/O ARJUNA K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
OPP. VETERINARY HOSPITAL
KODI ROAD, AIRODY VILLAGE
POST: SASTHAN
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 226
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . EDWARD LEWIS
S/O FELIX LEWIS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT POST BOX NO.9050
ABU DHABI
U.A.E-0644 9268
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
MRS. PRAMILA CRASTA
2
W/O WILSON CRASTA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A AIRODY VILLAGE & POST
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 226
2 . FELIX LEWIS
S/O LATE ANTONY LEWIS
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT AIRODY VILLAGE AND POST
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 226
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA S. SHASTRY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURURAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.02/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.
IN R.F.A No.1498 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. EDWARD LEWIS
S/O FELIX LEWIS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT POST BOX NO.9050
ABU DHABI, U.A.E
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A HOLDER
MRS. PRAMILA CRASTA
W/O WILSON CRASTA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT AIRODY
VILLAGE & POST
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-576 101
2 . MR. FELIX LEWIS
S/O LATE ANTONY LEWIS
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT AIRODY VILLAGE AND POST
3
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-576 101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA S. SHASTRY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURURAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MR. ARJUNA K
S/O LATE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OPP. TO VETERINARY HOSPITAL
KODI ROAD, AIRODY VILLAGE
POST: SASTHAN
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE -576 101
2 . SMT. REKHA
W/O MR.ARJUNA K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OPP. TO VETERINARY HOSPITAL
KODI ROAD, AIRODY VILLAGE
POST: SASTHAN
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-576 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.6.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.2/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES,
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT. PLAINTIFFS
THEREIN ARE NOT ENTITLING FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 20.8.2008 AND DEFENDANTS
NO.1 AND 2 THEREIN ARE LIABLE TO PAY RS.10,00,000/- AS
DAMAGES TO THE PLAINTIFFS THEREIN. THE APPELLANTS
HEREIN ARE PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ABOVE
MENTIONED JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.2/2009, IN SO
FAR AS DECLINING TO GRANT DECREE FOR SPECIFIC
4
PERFORMANCE AND DECREE THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR BY
ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR J.,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
These two appeals arise out of a single Judgment
dated 30th June 2011 passed in OS No.2/2009 by the
Sr.Civil Judge, Kundapura in a suit filed by the plaintiffs
seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement
of sale dated 25.08.2008 directing the defendants to
receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the
registered sale deed.
2. RFA No.1498/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs
challenging the rejection of their claim to grant the relief
of specific performance of the agreement of sale (supra)
and directing the defendants to pay Rs.10 lakhs as
damages to the plaintiffs together with costs of the case.
5
Whereas, RFA 1867/2011 is filed by the defendants
therein challenging the direction to pay the damages to
the plaintiffs as directed by the trial Court and even
challenged the findings of the trial Court with regard to
ready and willingness to perform the contract, time as
essence of a contract etc.,
3. For the purpose of convenience, parties to
these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the
trial Court.
Proceedings before the trial Court:
4. That plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of
specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.8.2008
and directing the defendants to execute the registered sale
deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount
on the ground that defendants being the owner of the suit
schedule property so described in the plaint entered into
agreement of sale on 25.8.2008 and agreed to sell the
same for a sale consideration amount of Rs.24,50,000/-. It
is specific case of the plaintiffs that in part performance of
the contract, the first plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- as
6
earnest money to the defendants on 25.8.2008 itself and
to that effect, the defendants executed the separate
receipt and acknowledged the same. It is stated that, as
per the terms and conditions of the agreement,
defendants agreed to clear the loan raised by them from
Syndicate Bank, Saligrama Branch before they execute the
sale deed in favour of first plaintiff or to his nominee by
receiving the balance consideration amount of
Rs.19,50,000/- within three months from the date of such
agreement at the cost of first plaintiff. Even the
defendants agreed to keep ready the RTC extract, receipt
for settling the loan amount, assessment extract, plans
and conversion order etc. to be handed over to the
plaintiffs at the time of registration of sale deed.
5. It is alleged that as per the stipulations in the
agreement, if the defendants fail to execute the sale deed,
the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief of specific
performance of contract or in the alternative is entitled to
get damages of Rs.10 lakhs from the defendants by
approaching the Court of law. It is alleged that, the
7
plaintiff no.1 nominated the second plainitff as purchaser
to pay the balance consideration and get the registered
sale deed executed. The said fact was informed to the
defendants but, the defendants started giving evasive
replies and went on postponing to execute the sale deed
without any lawful excuse. It is stated that, because of
conduct of defendants in postponing the execution of the
sale deed, plaintiffs issued a legal notice through their
counsel on 20.11.2008, called upon the defendants to
execute the sale deed with a request to execute the sale
deed in favour of second plaintiffs. To this notice,
defendants gave an evasive reply and avoided to perform
their part of contract though the plaintiffs were and are
ever ready to perform their part of contract as agreed. It
is alleged that defendants have committed breach of
contract, therefore, plaintiffs were constrained to file the
suit and there is no question of invoking forfeiture clause
as such occasion never arose. Hence, it was prayed to
decree the suit.
8
6. The defendants appeared before the trial Court
and it was defendant no.1 filed written statement same
was adopted by defendant no.2. So far as execution of
agreement of sale and the terms and conditions, so also
receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- by them is admitted.
7. The rest of the plaint allegations so made by
the plaintiffs are stoutly denied by the defendants. It is
contended that, defendants have made all their efforts to
get survey of their land, prepare the sketch. Even they
issued several reminders to the plaintiffs, but, plaintiffs
never came forward to give the balance consideration
amount and get execution of the registered sale deed.
Even the name of the nominee was enquired into. It is
contended that, it is plaintiffs who have committed breach
of sale agreement so also the contract entered into.
Instead of performing their part of contract, they gave
threat to defendants by illegal means. In the meanwhile,
the time stipulated was expired but, even then, in good
faith and on humanitarian grounds, they issued legal
notice on 1.12.2008 and requested the first plaintiff to get
9
the registered sale deed executed. But, the plaintiffs
issued a false reply notice on 1.12.2008 with a false story
and plaintiffs were never ever ready and willing to perform
their part of contract. Therefore, the said agreement is
frustrated by breach of contract on the part of the first
plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of any
performance of the contract by the defendant which is
already expired. Hence, it is prayed by the defendants to
dismiss the suit.
Proceedings before the trial Court:
8. In view of the rival pleadings of both the
parties, the learned trial Court framed in all five issues and
two additional issues. They read as under:
“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
always ready and willing to perform their part
of contract?
2. Whether defendants prove that the plaintiff
committed breach of their part of contract
i.e., agreement of sale dated 25.08.2008?
3. Whether defendants prove that they validly
cancelled the agreement of sale dated
25.08.2008?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief
sought?
10
5. What order or decree?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether defendants prove that the
agreement dated 25.08.2008 was rescinded
for non-performance and breach of terms and
conditions by the 1st plaintiff?
2. Whether defendants prove that the time is the
essence of contract as per agreement dated
25.08.2008?
9. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the first
plaintiff entered the witness box as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P16 and closed plaintiff’s evidence. To rebut the
evidence of the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 entered the
witness box as DW1 and got marked D1 to D3 and closed
defendant’s evidence.
10. The learned trial Court on hearing the evidence
of both the side and on assessment of evidence, held that
the plaintiffs have proved their readiness and willingness
to perform their part of the contract and defendants have
committed breach of contract on their part and defendants
were able to establish that time was essence of contract
and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part
rejecting the prayer to grant the specific performance of
11
contract and directed defendants to pay damages of Rs.10
lakhs to the plaintiffs together with cost. This is how now
both plaintiffs and defendants by filing their independent
appeals are before this court challenging the impugned
judgment of the trial Court.
Submission of Appellant/Plaintiff’s Counsel:
11. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs
that as the facts narrated above do establish most of the
factual features with regard to the agreement of sale in
between plaintiffs and defendants dated 25.8.2008 is
admitted so also receipt of earnest money by the
defendants. Sri Vighneshwar Shastri learned senior
counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that, with the time
stipulated to perform the contract, plaintiff requested
defendants to execute the sale deed by receiving the
balance consideration amount but, on one or the other
pretext these defendants went on postponing. These
defendants wanted to sell the property to clear off the loan
raised from the then Syndicate Bank, Saligrama Branch
and also to purchase alternative property for their use and
12
occupation. Even defendants by receiving the earnest
money have cleared off the said loan and also made all
arrangements to purchase alternative property for their
use and occupation. Though the plaintiffs were and are
ever ready, it was defendants who committed breach of
contract and not plaintiffs. According to his submission,
PW.1 has spoken in line with the plaint averments and his
evidence is supported by documentary evidence. He would
further submit that, though the learned trial Court came to
the conclusion that plaintiffs have proved agreement of
sale, receipt of the earnest money and readiness and
willingness to perform the contract by the plaintiffs, but,
on the question of hardship has wrongly negatived the
relief of specific performance of contract. As the plaintiffs
are deserving to get such a relief in view of the facts and
circumstances brought on record, he would submit that,
the learned trial Court has committed illegality and error in
passing the impugned judgment which according to him
requires interference by this Court. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon
the following judgments:
13
i. M.S. Madhusoodhanan and another v. Kerala
Kaumudi Pvt.Ltd. and others, AIR 2004 SC 909.
ii. Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh (dead) through
legal representatives and others, (2021) 17
SCC 705iii. Jugraj Singh and another v. Labh Singh and
others, AIR 1995 SC 945iv. Shenbagam and others v. KK Rathinavel,
Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2022.
v. U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy,
(2023) 11 SCC 775.
vi. Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs v. Hartar Singh
Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512.
vii. Desh Raj and Ors. v. Rohtash Singh, AIR
2023 SC 163
Submissions of Counsel for Respondents/
Defendants:
12. As against this submission, learned counsel for
defendants Sri A.Keshav Bhat with all vehemence submits
that the trial Court has committed illegality in holding that
plaintiffs were ever ready and willing to perform their part
of contract and there is failure on the part of defendants to
execute the sale deed. He would further submit that as the
time was essence of contract, within the stipulated time,
the plaintiffs never came forward. They created confusion
14
to the defendants to execute the sale deed to whom? i.e.
either to plaintiff no.1 or plaintiff no.2. Because of this
confusion, it was not possible for the defendants to
execute the sale deed. In the mean time, stipulated time
expired and now plaintiffs on the guise of findings of the
trial Court cannot seek the relief of specific performance of
contract as they prayed in their suit.
13. In support of their respective submissions both
the counsel relied upon the respective evidence lead by
both the parties.
14. Having heard the arguments of both the side,
we have given our thoughtful consideration to the
arguments of both the side and perused the trial Court
records and also grounds urged in the respective appeal
memos.
15. In view of the rival submissions of both side,
the following points arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the findings of the trial Court
regarding rejection of the claim of the plaintiff
for specific performance of contract and
15granting damages to them is perverse,
capracious and require interference by this
Court?
(ii) Whether the dismissal of the claim of the
plaintiff on the ground of hardship is just and
proper?
(iii) What order?
The point Nos. 1 and 2 require common discussion:
16. In this case, most of the factual features in
between plaintiffs and defendants are admitted. They are:
I. The defendants being the owners of suit
schedule properties agreed to sell the same to
the plaintiffs by executing agreement of sale
on 25.8.2008 in favour of plaintiffs. In part
performance of the contract, the first plaintiff
paid Rs.5 lakhs to the defendants out of the
total sale consideration and this was
acknowledged by the defendants by executing
a receipt to that effect on 25.8.2008. The
defendants wanted to purchase alternative
property for their use and occupation
therefore, they decided to sell the suit
schedule property.
16
II. As per the stipulations in the
agreement, defendants have to clear the loan
borrowed by them from the then Syndicate
Bank, Saligrama Branch before execution of
sale deed and they should not a create any
mortgage, lien, assignment or transfer or
alienation in respect of the suit schedule
property which was agreed to be sold for the
sale consideration of Rs.24,50,000/- in all and
they had to execute the sale deed either in
favour of the plaintiff or to his nominee by
receiving balance consideration of
Rs.19,50,000/- within three months from the
date of agreement of sale at the cost of the
plaintiff.
III. As per the agreement, the
defendants must keep the RTC extracts,
receipt for having cleared the loan extract of
assessment register, plans and conversion
order and handover the same to the first
plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale
deed and put the plaintiff no.1 or his nominee
in possession of the schedule properties.
IV. Thus, the agreement of sale dated
25.8.2008 is admitted document between
plaintiffs and defendants.
17
V. Plaintiffs issued legal notice on
20.11.2008 to the defendants and called upon
them to execute the sale deed by performing
their part of contract by receiving the balance
consideration amount as stipulated in the
agreement.
VI. To this notice, a reply notice was
addressed by the second defendant which
was received by the counsel for the plaintiff
on 24.11.2008 and another reply was also
issued by the defendants on 24.11.2008 itself
admitting the agreement of sale and the
terms and conditions incorporated therein.
VII. Plaintiffs issued reply notice on
1.12.2008 to the said reply notice, accepting
the willingness of the defendants to execute
the sale deed in favour of second plaintiff by
asking them to inform the date and time and
where he should meet the defendants for
execution of registered sale deed.
The above narrated facts are admitted between both
the parties which need not be proved.
18
17. The only grievance of the plaintiffs is that,
despite plaintiffs are ever ready and willing to perform
their part of contracts, the defendants did not execute the
sale deed and even there is no rescission of contract
therefore, the question of the forfeiture of advance
amount of Rs.5 lakhs by the defendants is illegal and the
learned trial Court has committed grave error in
negativing the relief so claimed by the plaintiffs. Whereas,
it is the specific defence of the defendants that as the
plaintiffs did not come forward to show their ready and
willingness to perform their part of contract by keeping the
balance consideration ready within the time stipulated in
the agreement of sale therefore, automatically by efflux of
time, the said agreement come to an end and there was a
rescission of contract, but, the learned trial Court has
wrongly awarded damages to be paid to the plaintiffs by
the defendants. As per the defendants, in fact plaintiffs are
not entitled for any relief much less claimed in the plaint.
19
18. Now we have to ascertain that whether the
plaintiffs are able to prove their case with acceptable
evidence or otherwise.
19. PW.1 being the plaintiff no.1 has reiterated the
plaint averments in his evidence on oath by filing his
affidavit in the shape of his examination-in-chief and also
got marked Ex.P1 to P13 in support of his evidence. The
document so produced by the plaintiffs in the shape of
Ex.P1 to P13 are not denied by the defendants. This PW.1
is cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants at
length. It is an admitted fact between both the sides that,
plaintiff PW.1 is residing abroad and once in two years he
comes to his native place on 21 days leave. It is his
evidence that, his parents informed him about decision of
the defendants to sell the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, when he went to the suit schedule property to
see the same, he had discussion with the defendants and
defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a
valuable consideration so mentioned in the agreement of
sale. Though intensive cross-examination is directed to
20
this witness, but, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth.
In the cross-examination itself, it is elicited about receipt
of advance consideration amount of Rs.5 lakhs. By utilizing
the same defendants have cleared their loan borrowed
from the then Syndicate Bank. According to his evidence,
on the date of registration of the sale deed itself,
defendants had to handover the possession to the
plaintiffs. It is stated by PW.1 that, by receiving the
advance amount, the defendants had to make alternative
arrangement for their residence. It is suggested that, to
purchase the suit schedule property, the defendants have
paid advance money to the owner of another house which
they intended to purchase. To this suggestion, PW.1
deposed ignorance. But, this suggestion goes to establish
that, defendants had definite mind to sell the suit schedule
property and by receiving the advance consideration
amount, they wanted to clear the loan raised from the
bank and purchase residential accommodation for their
use and occupation.
21
20. It is his evidence that, after the execution of
the agreement of sale dated 25.8.2008, he went abroad
on 16.09.2008. He did not file any application for the
purpose of measurement of the schedule properties and
did not enquire defendants about the same. Whereas, his
father put the signature to the notice issued for
measurement. They are at Ex.D1 and D2. It is suggested
that, these Ex.D1 and D3 were prepared after three
months of agreement. This suggestion is admitted by
PW.1. That means even beyond three months, the
aforesaid documents which were agreed to be obtained by
the defendants were obtained by them. He states that,
when the said agreement took place, he had knowledge
that within three months he could not return. He
volunteers to say that, he requested the defendants to
execute the sale deed in favour of his father plaintiff no.2.
This information was furnished to the defendants orally by
him. According to him, when Ex.P6 was issued, he was at
abroad and his father and sister gave instructions to the
Advocate to issue Ex.P6 notice. He speaks with regard to
his readiness and willingness to perform his part of
22
contract and ready with the balance consideration in his
examination in chief. This fact is not denied throughout
the cross-examination. Even a single sentence is directed
to PW.1 that plaintiffs were not having any financial
capacity to pay the balance consideration amount. There
were exchanges of notices in between them. The other
part of the cross-examination so directed to PW.1 would
not help the case of the defendants to prove their defence.
21. So far as documentary evidence produced by
the plaintiffs, Ex.P1 and P2 are the RTC extracts. The
contents of these documents are not denied by both the
parties. The most vital document is, Ex.P3 which is an
admitted document between both the parties named as
‘agreement of sale’ in respect of sale of immovable
property. It is agreed that the sale deed has to be
executed within three months as per Clause-IV of the
agreement of sale. Even at Clause-VIII a forfeiture clause
is mentioned. Clause No.IX is that, if the plaintiffs intend
to get the sale deed executed, as per the suggestion made
by Plaintiff no.1, in the name of such person, the
23
defendants have to execute the sale deed. This fact is not
denied by the defendants.
22. Ex.P4 is the receipt dated 25.8.2008 for having
received Rs.5 lakhs from the plaintiff as an advance
amount in respect of the subject property which was
agreed to be sold for Rs.24,50,000/-. Ex.P5 is the general
power of attorney produced by the plaintiffs constituting
Mrs.Pramila Cresta as his power of attorney. Ex.P6 is the
legal notice issued by the plaintiff’s counsel on 20.11.2008
narrating the contents of the agreement of sale showing
readiness and willingness to perform the contract and
even it is recited that, defendants were under obligation to
clear the loan borrowed from the then Syndicate Bank,
Saligrama Branch and should not create any mortgage,
lien, assignment, transfer or alienation in any manner and
shall execute the sale deed by receiving the balance
consideration amount by preparing a document so stated.
23. It is made clear in the said notice that, plaintiff
no.1 nominated his father plaintiff no.2 as the vendee in
whose name defendants to execute sale deed by receiving
24
the sale consideration. It is stated that, unfortunately
defendants gave evasive replies and went on postponing
the execution of ale deed.
24. Receipt of this notice is not denied by the
defendants which was sent under Registered Post
acknowledge. Those documents are produced at Ex.P7 to
P11. Defendant no.2 issued a reply as per Ex.P12 to the
counsel for the plaintiff admitting the transaction entered
into between plaintiff and defendants. Her grievance in
Ex.P12 is that, the said notice was issued in English and
she requested to issue letter or notice in Kannada. She
has understood that it was pertaining to sale of suit
schedule property. It is brought to the notice of the
counsel for the plaintiffs that, in whose name, they have
to execute the sale deed is in confusion as it was insisted
to execute the sale deed in the name of father of plaintiff,
in the name of his sister brother etc., In the absence of
her husband, she has issued this reply notice. Ex.P13
came to be issued by the defendants to the counsel for the
plaintiff admitting the whole transaction through the
25
counsel for the defendants and stated that, to intimate the
plaintiff no.1 to get ready with balance sale consideration
amount and to inform the plaintiffs about the place and
time where the sale deed is to be executed, it was
cautioned that otherwise, the defendants would apply
forfeiture clause.
25. To this plaintiff’s counsel issued reply notice
stating that plaintiff no.1 informed defendants that he
nominated plaintiff no.2 as his nominee to get the sale
deed executed and plaintiffs are ever ready with the
balance consideration amount and it is plaintiff no.2 would
pay the same. This notice was issued on 1.12.2008. In this
reply notice, it was made clear by the plaintiffs that, as the
plaintiffs are ever ready, there is no question of any
forfeiture of the advance amount. To this, counsel for the
defendants again replied for the first time stating that,
though they admit the agreement of sale and transactions
therein but, plaintiffs failed to perform their part of
contract within the time limit, therefore, it is stated “my
clients have decided not to sell their property but, to get
26
settled in the said property by renovating the house
thereon. Thus sale agreement is frustrated by the breach
of a contract on the part of your client’s time. Hence, the
question of performance of the expired contract of sale
does not arise at all.” It is further stated that, defendants
have experienced painful and hardship by entering into
sale agreement with defendants and decided to refund the
advance money.
26. This has made the plaintiffs to file the suit
seeking the relief stated above. To show that plaintiffs
were having funds in their account, the account extract
Ex.P16 is produced for the period commencing from
1.11.2008 to 31.3.2009. It is marked without any
objection from the defendants. The outstanding credit
balance is shown at Rs.22,61,841/- as on 20.03.2009. The
learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that as on
10.02.2009, there was a balance of Rs.19,34,309/-. That
means, the plaintiffs were having sufficient financial
capacity to meet the balance consideration amount.
27
27. Whereas, DW.1/defendant no.1 reiterates the
contents of written statement admitting the agreement of
sale, receipt of advance money etc., Even he has stated
that, since the registration of the sale deed shall be
accompanied with the survey sketch to be prepared which
is required to be signed by both the seller and purchaser.
According to him, he has made all efforts on his part to
get the property measured and to get the sketch. He
admits that, plaintiff no.2 signed the application and he
made all efforts to inform the plaintiffs to pay the balance
consideration and get the sale deed registered personally
in the name of his nominee. This sentence spoken to by
DW.1 do not find place in his pleadings effectively. It is his
allegation that, plaintiff no.1 has failed to perform his part
of contract within the stipulated time as the time was the
essence of contract as agreed by the parties to the sale
agreement. He says that, on account of failure of the
parties and non-co-operation to get the registered sale
deed executed by making payment of balance
consideration amount within the stipulated time, he could
have purchased the proposed house property for his
28
convenience. He states, thereby he has been put to
inconvenience loss and damage. For the first time, he says
so in his examination chief without any pleadings. He too
relies upon two documents. In unequivocal terms in his
cross-examination, he admits the contents of Ex.P3,
receipt of Rs.5 lakhs under Ex.P4. He also admits that, in
the said Ex.P3, name of the plaintiff’s father is mentioned
Felix Luis. He admits that, within the time stipulated if the
plaintiffs pay the balance consideration they were ready to
execute the sale deed. he admits that, himself and second
plaintiff together filed an application before the Tahsildar
for the purpose of measurement of the schedule property.
He admits about issuance of notice on 20.11.2008 as per
Ex.P6. Even he admits that in the said notice, as requested
by the defendants, the date, time and place have been
mentioned by the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed.
According to him, his Advocate must have replied to the
plaintiffs. He states that on receipt of Ex.P14, they
informed about time and place of execution of sale deed
and they were ready for the same. He states that but, the
plaintiff did not come forward. He states that even after
29
execution of Ex.P14 they were ready to execute the sale
deed. Thus, it is his evidence that, because of the mistake
of the plaintiffs, they could not execute the sale deed.
28. He further deposes ignorance that, whether the
plaintiffs had kept the amount to pay the balance
consideration amount. He never denies about readiness
with the cash by the plaintiffs. Further he deposed
ignorance with regard to loss caused to plaintiffs. In
para.16 of the cross-examination, he admits as under:
“¤¦ 3 PÀgÁgÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀ CªÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß C £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¤d. £ÁªÀÅ ¤¦ 3 PÀgÁgÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹®è.
DzÀgÉ ¤UÀ¢vÀ 3 wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄV¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤¦ vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà gÀzÁÝVzÉ.”
29. But, according to him, as the sale deed was not
executed within three months, it is cancelled. But, even
after three months according to his evidence, the period is
extended and there was no cancellation or rescission of
contract. How after three months, the said agreement
rescinded is not explained by the DW.1
30. It is suggested that, these defendants have not
given any advance amount towards purchase of other
property for their use and occupation but, this suggestion
30
is denied by him and such a payment is not imaginary
according to him. That means, on getting the advance
amount, he has utilized the same not only for clearing the
loan so borrowed from Syndicate Bank but, also has given
advance to purchase a new property for their occupation.
Ex.D1 is the notice and Ex.D2 is the sketch issued by the
Surveyor and Ex.D3 is the joint statement of defendants
before the surveyor.
31. Thus, on reading the entire evidence both oral
and documentary, it shows that the plaintiffs have pleaded
and proved the agreement of sale Ex.P3 and their ready
and willingness to perform their part of contract. The
learned trial Court has rightly given findings to that effect
in its judgment which are also challenged by the
defendants by filing separate appeal stated above.
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs in support
of his submission relied upon various judgments stated
above, wherein it has been laid down that, when and how
the relief specific performance can be granted etc. It is
settled that, in case of immovable property time is not the
31
essence of contract. But, in this case even after the expiry
of three moths’ period as per the evidence of DW.1 the
said period was extended. When exactly the documents
Ex.D1 and D3 were obtained is not made clear. Most of the
factual features are admitted by the defendants. The
learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the grant of
relief of specific performance is discretionary as provided
under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As the
most of the facts in this case are admitted and even the
trial Court has observed and given a finding that the
plaintiffs are able to prove most of the issues in their
favour, he submits that the trial Court ought to have
exercised its discretion and granted the relief of specific
performance of the contract.
33. In this regard, he relied upon a judgment in the
case SUGHAR SINGH vs. HARI SINGH (DEAD)
THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS,
reported in (2021) 17 SCC 705 and submits that, the
principles laid down with regard to discretion are aptly
applicable to the present facts of the case. According to his
submission, in view of the fact so brought on record by the
32
plaintiffs and clear admissions of the defendants, the
balance tilts in favour of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs are
deprived of their possession because of this litigation
though they were ready to perform their part of the
contract. He submits that, despite receiving Rs.5 lakhs and
making use of the same for the purpose so stated in the
agreement of sale and as admitted by DW.1 and despite
execution of agreement of sale, now the defendants all of
a sudden expressed their unwillingness to execute the sale
deed.
34. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial
Court answered most of the issues in favour of the
plaintiffs. Though challenged by the defendants but, in
view of the evidence brought on record as submitted by
the counsel for the plaintiffs except the question of
hardship, the trial Court has rightly observed regarding
proof of agreement of sale, ready and willingness to
perform the contract. The learned trial Court concluded
that, the so called agreement of sale dated 25.8.2008 to
sell the schedule property in favour of plaintiffs for a
33
valuable consideration and its validity was extended as per
the admission of DW.1 and receipt of advance amount so
also acknowledgement to that effect.
35. The learned trial Court rightly appreciated that
these defendant agreed to sell the schedule property in
favour of the plaintiffs by receiving the balance
consideration amount and has not doubted the payment of
balance consideration amount and also readiness of the
plaintiffs to perform their part of contract by paying
balance consideration amount as they were holding
sufficient amount in their account as credit balance.
36. Though it is vehemently submitted by the
counsel for the defendants that the ingredients of Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief 1963, (herein after ‘Act’) is not
complied by the plaintiffs but, it is not so. As it is settled
position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various judgments that, for determining the readiness and
willingness pleadings have to be read as a whole. The pith
and substance being that `readiness and willingness’ has
to be in spirit and not in the letter form. In para.22 of the
34
aforesaid judgment, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court with regard to application of Section 16(C) of the
Specific Performance Act as under:
“22. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court has committed a
grave error in holding the issue with respect to
readiness and willingness against the plaintiff solely
on the ground that there are no specific
averments/pleadings in the plaint as required under
Section 16(c) of the Act. Considering the fact that
initially payment of Rs.25,000 was made at the
time of execution of the agreement to sell and
further sum of Rs.15,000 in two installments were
paid at the time when the subsequent two
documents were executed for extension of time and
even the time was extended at the instance of
Defendant 1 and the balance amount of Rs.16,000
was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale
deed, it can safely be said that the plaintiff was
always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract under the agreement to sell.”
37. With regard to the ready and willingness to
perform the part of the contract, one has to read the
provisions of the Section 16 of Act. Under this Section,
the plea about ready and willingness of plaintiff is
specifically available to the vendor or his legal
representatives. The law says that, it is personal to him.
This provision provides that the plaintiff must plead and
prove that he has always been ready and willing to
perform his part of the essential terms of the contract.
35
The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages
from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing
of the suit need to be proved. The trial Court has
specifically observed in its judgment that, the plaintiffs are
able to prove their readiness and willingness to perform
their part of the contract. This finding though challenged
by the defendants by filing separate appeal, but in view of
the evidence brought on record by the defendants and as
well as the admissions of DW.1 given in the cross-
examination proves the said plea. Though the defendants
claimed that, plaintiffs have not established the said plea,
since the date of the contract as per evidence PW.1, has
specifically stated about continuous ready and willingness
to perform their part of the contract. The learned counsel
for the plaintiffs relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in between JUGRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER
vs. LABH SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1995
SC 945, wherein the scope of Section 16(c) of the Act,
has been discussed. Likewise, various judgments have
been relied by both side and these judgments specifically
laid down the law that Section 16(c) of Act bars the relief
36
of specific performance of a contract in favour of a person
who fails to aver and prove his ready and willingness to
perform his part of the contract.
38. It is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED)
THR. LRS. vs. A.M. KRISHNAMURTHY in Civil Appeal
No.4703/2022 decided on 12.07.2022 that; in view of
the Explanation (i) to clause (c) of Section 16 of the
Specific Relief Act, it may not be essential for the plaintiff
to actually tender money to the defendant or to deposit
money in Court, except when so directed by the Court, to
prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential
terms of a contract, which involves payment of money.
However, explanation (ii) says the plaintiff must aver
performance or readiness and willingness to perform the
contract according to its true construction.
39. Though the learned counsel for the defendants
relied upon various judgments in support of his submission
but the evidence so brought on record clearly show that,
in this case, the plaintiffs have pleaded their readiness and
37
willingness to perform their part of the contract and also
as per the documents produced and the oral evidence of
PW.1 clinchingly establish that, the plaintiffs have proved
the said ingredients with legal and acceptable evidence.
40. Further more, from the analysis of the various
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to the
relief of specific performance of a contract; it is clear that
in the case of a sale of immovable property, there is no
presumption as to time being the essence of contract.
Even, if it is not of the essence of the contract, the Court
may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time, if
the conditions are evident i.e., as held in the case of
CHAND RANI v. KAMAL RANI reported in (1993) 1
SCC 519.
1. From the express terms of the contract;
2. From the nature of the property; and
3. From the surrounding circumstances, for
example: the object of making the contract.
41. The defendants have taken up a contention
that, under the said transaction, time was the essence of a
contract and within three months from the date of
38
agreements, the plaintiffs have not come forward to get
the sale deed executed by paying the balance
consideration amount. But the stipulation was that, the
defendants have to prepare the documents, get the
revenue documents along with sketch etc. It is not the
case of the defendants that within the time so stipulated in
the said Agreement-Ex.P3, they could get all the
documents required for registering the sale deed. It has
come in the evidence of DW.1 that, even after three
months period as stipulated in the agreement, it was
extended. Therefore, if the principles laid down in CHAND
RANI (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case,
there were express terms of the contract to get the
documents prepared by the defendants and they have to
clear of the loan borrowed from the then Syndicate Bank,
Saligrama Branch. The property involved in this case is
immovable property. The object of making the contract by
the plaintiffs with the defendants was to have the property
of their own and defendants intended to have the
alternative property for their own use and occupation.
This fact has been spoken to by PW.1 in his evidence and
39
he is consistent throughout his cross-examination. The
clauses in the agreement of sale do establish that,
plaintiffs have proved the ingredients to grant the relief of
a specific performance of contract as averred in the plaint.
42. In a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of GADDIPATI DIVIJA AND ANOTHER vs. PATHURI
SAMRAJYAM AND OTHERS reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 442 in Para-34, has observed as under:
“34. However, the set of facts
and circumstances in Siddamsetty (supra)were
substantially different from the case at hand. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
as under:
“33. At the outset, this Court has perused
Clause 3 of the agreements, which is in two
parts. The first part provides for the purchaser’s
obligation, while the second part details the
obligation of the vendors to provide the requisite
certificates. Although both the obligations were
required to be completed within the stipulated
period of three months, there is a substantive
difference between these two sets of obligations.
The obligation upon the vendors concerned was
production of certain certificates, such as income
tax exemption certificate and agriculture
40certificate. No consequences were spelt out for
non-performance of such obligations. Whereas
the obligation on the purchaser, was to make the
complete payment of the sale consideration
within three months. The clause further
mandates forfeiture of the advance amount if the
payment obligation is not met within the time
period stipulated therein.
43. Further, in the above said judgment itself, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly observed by referring to so
many judgments that in case of non-compliance of
vendor’s obligations (of producing certain documents)
within three months, no consequences were mentioned;
whereas, on the other hand, in case of non-compliance of
the purchaser’s obligations (of paying the balance sale
consideration) within three months, the advance amount
would be forfeited. In Para-35 of the said judgment, it is
observed as under:
“35. From a perusal of the above extracted
portion of Siddamsetty (supra), it is clear that in
the said case, the agreement stipulated that both
the purchaser as well as the vendor were to fulfil
their obligation within three months. But, in case of
non-compliance of the vendor’s obligations (of
producing certain documents) within three months,
41no consequences were mentioned; whereas, on the
other hand, in case of non-compliance of the
purchaser’s obligations (of paying the balance sale
consideration) within three months, the advance
amount would be forfeited. This Court while
concluding that the purchaser was not ready or
willing to perform his part of the contract within the
stipulated time period, denied to grant specific
performance for the entire contract. However, what
is to be seen in the present case, is that the sale
agreement dated 14.08.2002 stipulated that the
vendor (deceased G. Venugopala Rao) was required
to get the land measured and demarcated within
three months, following which, the purchaser
(Respondent No. 1 herein/Plaintiff) was required to
pay the balance sale consideration. So, it can be
clearly observed that the performance of the
purchaser’s obligation to pay the balance sale
consideration within three months is dependent
upon the fulfilment of the vendor’s obligation to get
the land measured and demarcated within three
months.”
44. The said observations are similar to the facts of
this case. Therefore, it can be deduced that unless the
vendor get the subject land measured and demarcated
within three months, it would be impossible for
the plaintiffs to get a sale deed executed, and as such, the
42
question of paying the balance sale consideration does not
arise. In this case also, the defendants have not obtained
required documents within three months.
It is not necessary that the plaintiffs have to keep the
amount ready and if they come forward to get the sale
deed executed, by paying the sale consideration and show
about financial capacity to pay the said amount, it is
sufficient. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that as per
the recitals in the sale agreement, he has kept the amount
ready and willing to pay the balance consideration
amount. As such, when specific terms of the contract have
not been done, the question of time being the essence of
contract does not arise. Therefore, the defendants cannot
contend that the time was the essence of the contract in
view of their failure to get the documents prepared within
three months as stipulated.
45. In view of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs deserves to
be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and
they are entitled for a decree of their suit granting relief of
43
specific performance of a contract and defendants have to
execute the sale deed by receiving the balance
consideration amount.
46. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SARADAMANI
KANDAPPAN vs. S.RAJALAKSHMI reported in (2011)
12 SCC 18, wherein it is held that, property prices
generally escalate over time due to inflation and market
dynamics. In the instant case, 16 years have passed since
the agreement was made which means there could be a
significant increase in property prices. Courts often
recognize that, with the passage of time, the value of the
immovable property may have changed substantially. This
impacts the fairness of the contract, especially in terms of
price and the original intentions of the parties involved.
Specific performance is a discretionary remedy. Courts
have the power to grant or deny it based on the
circumstances of the case, including fairness to both
parties. When considering a claim for specific
performance, the Court will look at factors like:
44
• The delay in performance by the
defendant(s).
• Whether the terms of the agreement are
still reasonable in light of current
circumstances.
• The hardship caused to either party if the
contract is enforced or otherwise.
When someone enters into a sale agreement, they
typically have a pressing reason for selling (such as
needing funds for medical expenses, education, or buying
a new property). In this case, the delay of 16 years has
likely prevented the seller from achieving their original
goals (such as purchasing another property or making
investments). This should be factored into the court’s
decision. If the seller was relying on the proceeds of the
sale for some important purpose, this need should weigh
on the court’s discretion. The significant rise in land prices,
especially in India during the last quarter of the 20th
century, along with the fall in the value of money
(inflation), presents a situation where the original sale
price may no longer reflect the current market value. If
the buyer insists on paying the original price, it could
45
result in a loss to the seller, or at the very least, delay the
fulfilment of their purpose of sale. The Court may consider
this aspect to protect the seller from unfair losses due to
inflation or property value escalation. The seller may also
be concerned about capital gains tax implications, as the
proceeds from the sale must be reinvested within a
specific timeframe to avoid paying tax. If the payment is
delayed, it may affect the seller’s ability to reinvest and
save on taxes. This is an important financial consideration
that the Court may take into account while exercising its
discretion in case of specific performance.
47. The Hon’be Apex Court in the case of
P. DAIVASIGAMANI vs. S. SAMBANDAN, reported in
AIR 2022 SC 5009 has held in para nos.21, 22 and 23
which read as under:
“21. Having said that, let us examine the facts of
this case. As discussed earlier, the respondent-
plaintiff had not only averred in the plaint about his
issuing notices within the period of six months of
the agreement in question, calling upon the
appellant-defendant to perform his part of the
contract and conclude the sale transaction, also
showing his readiness and willingness to perform
his part of the contract, but the respondent had
also proved the same by stepping into the witness
46box. Though much reliance was placed by the
learned counsel for the appellant on the decisions
of this Court in Ritu Saxena v. J.S. Grover [Ritu
Saxena v. J.S. Grover, (2019) 9 SCC 132 : (2019)
4 SCC (Civ) 302] , in Abdullakoya Haji v. Rubis
Tharayil [Abdullakoya Haji v. Rubis Tharayil, (2019)
17 SCC 216 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 399] , and other
cases, to submit that the respondent had failed to
establish his financial capacity to pay the balance
amount of consideration at the relevant time and
had also failed to deposit the said amount in the
court at the time of filing of the suit, he was not
entitled to the discretionary relief of specific
performance as granted by the Court, we do not
find any substance in any of the said submissions.
As per the ratio of judgment laid down by the
three-Judge Bench in Syed Dastagir [Syed
Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC
337] , the compliance of “readiness and
willingness” has to be in spirit and substance and
not in letter and form, while making averments in
the plaint. As per Explanation (i) to Section 16(c),
he need not tender to the defendant or deposit the
amount in the court, but he must aver performance
of, or readiness and willingness to perform the
contract according to its true construction.
22. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and to the conduct of the
parties, we have no hesitation in holding that there
was due compliance of Section 16(c) read with its
Explanation on the part of the respondent and that
it was the appellant who had failed to perform as
per the terms of the agreement, though called upon
by the respondent to perform. The High Court also
had rightly held that the plaintiff had complied with
the requirements of Section 16(c) of the said Act by
making a specific pleading with regard to his
readiness and willingness and also proving the
same by reliable evidence. This Court does not find
any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment
[S. Sambandam v. P. Daivasigamani, 2010 SCC
OnLine Mad 3459] passed by the High Court. We,
therefore confirm the same, so far as granting of
47decree for specific performance of the agreement in
question is concerned.
23. At this juncture, the Court cannot be
oblivious to the fact that there has been a steep
rise in the price of immovable properties since last
few decades. Before the final hearing of the appeal,
the parties were sent to the Mediation Centre for
exploring the possibility of settlement, however, the
mediation remained unsuccessful. Having regard to
the fact that the agreement in question was
entered into between the parties in October 1989,
and considering the steep rise in the prices of land,
we are of the opinion that interest of justice would
be met if the respondent is directed to pay some
more amount. It is also noted that the appellant
had enjoyed the possession of the suit land all
throughout. Hence in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the respondent is directed to deposit a
sum of rupees one crore in the trial court towards
the sale consideration, over and above the amount
that might have been deposited by him, within a
period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit
being made, the appellant shall execute the sale
deed in favour of the respondent and shall also be
at liberty to withdraw the said amount deposited by
the respondent.
Therefore, the offer of the plaintiffs/purchaser in
writing, the time and occasion when they offer to pay the
balance amount to the defendants/seller is an important
factor which would matter when the Court examines the
question of discretion i.e., whether or not to grant a
decree of specific performance. Having said that, all along
plaintiffs have pleaded and proved with expectable
48evidence about their readiness and willingness to perform
part of contract and also brought on record their financial
capacity to pay the balance consideration amount. Thus,
they have fulfilled as narrated above, the ingredients of
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in P. DAIVASIGAMANI (supra) has
held with regard to the rise in price of the land and it was
opined that, interest of justice would be met if the
purchaser is directed to pay some more amount. It is also
noted that, the vendor had enjoyed the possession of suit
property all throughout. Hence, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it was directed to the purchaser
to deposit more amount than the amount he agreed. As
per the sale agreement, the plaintiff agreed to purchase
the suit schedule property for a consideration amount of
Rs.24,50,000 and on the date of agreement dated
25.08.2008 the first plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- as
advance and balance is Rs.19,15,000/-. Because of steep
rise in the price, if the plaintiffs are directed to pay
Rs.20,00,000/- more in addition to Rs.19,15,000/- and get
the sale deed executed in their favour, it would meet the
49ends of justice. The said amount has to be deposited by
the plaintiffs in the trial Court towards the sale
consideration over and above amount that have been
deposited by them, within six weeks from the date of
judgment. On such deposit being made, the defendants
shall execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and they
are at liberty to withdraw the said amount deposited by
the plaintiffs. Accordingly the above raised points are
answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, appeal
filed by the appellants i.e., plaintiffs in RFA.No.1498/2011
succeeds and appeal filed by the defendants in
RFA.No.1867/2011 is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly,
we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) RFA No.1867/2011 is dismissed.
(ii) RFA No.1498/2011 is allowed.
(iii) The impugned judgment dated
30.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.2/2009 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura
is set aside. Suit in O.S.No.2/2009 is
decreed.
50
(iv) The plaintiff-appellants are directed to
deposit the balance consideration amount
of Rs.19,15,000/- along with additional
amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards rise in
price of land in all Rs.39,15,000/- (Rupees
thirty nine lakh fifteen thousand only)
before the trial Court within six weeks
from the date of the judgment excluding
the deposit if any already made.
(v) The respondent-defendants are hereby
directed to execute the sale deed by
receiving the balance consideration
amount of Rs.19,15,000/- additionally,
Rs.20,00,000/- towards rise in price of
land, in all Rs.39,15,000/-(Rupees thirty
nine lakh fifteen thousand only) within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
(vi) If the defendants fail to execute the sale
deed within time stipulated, the plaintiffs
51are at liberty to get the sale deed
executed through process of Court.
(vii) Under the circumstances, costs made
easy.
There shall be modified decree in the above
terms.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK/SMJ