OS_98/2018 1

KAMD210002072018

Presented on : 09-02-2018
Registered on : 16-02-2018
Decided on : 07-12-2024
Duration: 6 years, 9 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,

KRISHNARAJAPETE

PRESENT: SMT. ARPITHA K.V.

B.A.LL.B., LL.M.
II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
K.R.PETE.

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER-2024

O.S.No. 98/2018

Plaintiff: M.B Javaregowda

S/o Late Basavegowda,
aged about 62 years,
R/at Mudlapura village,
Akkihebbalu hobli,
K.R.Pete taluk,
Mandya district.

(By Sri.A.R.,Adv.)
V/s
Defendants:1. Bommarayigowda,
S/o Late Annaiah,
aged about 55 years,

2. Ambamani
W/o Bommarayi,
aged about 46 years,

3. B.Vijayalakshmi
D/o Bommarayi,
OS_98/2018 2

aged about 26 years, ‘

All are R/at

Bommanahalli village,
Kasaba hobli,
K.R.Pete taluk.
Mandya district.

( By Sri. B.M.J.)

Date of institution of the 09.02.2018

suit
Nature of the suit Specific Performance

Date of the commencement

of recording of the 03.11.2023
evidence
Date of pronouncement of 07.12.2024
judgment
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration 06 09 10

(Smt.Arpitha K.V.)
II Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.
K.R.Pete.

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the

Defendant for relief of Specific Performance of Contract.

SCHEDULES

1. The property bearing Sy.No.22/8 measuring 0.09.08

guntas, situated at Bommenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli,

K.R.Pete taluk, Mandya District, bounded on East by: property

OS_98/2018 3

of Dasaiah S/o Doddasingraiah, West by: Property of

Chaluvaiah S/o Devi Kariyaiah, North by Road, and South by

Property of Vairamudaiah S/o Doddasingraiah.

2. The property bearing Sy.No.14/4 measuring 0.12

guntas, situated at Bommenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli,

K.R.Pete taluk, Mandya District, bounded on East by: property

of Deviramma W/o Annajaiah, West by: Road, North by

property of Deviramma W/o Annajaiah, South by Property of

Deviramma W/o Annajayya.

2. The Brief facts of the Plaintiff case is that;

That the Defendants for the purpose of educational

expenses and repayment of hand loan, agreed to sell the suit
property to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-
and executed Agreement of Sale dated 13.12.2015 in favour of
the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule properties for sale
consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- and received earnest
amount of Rs.50,000/- in presence of witnesses and agreed to
execute the sale deed as per the terms of said Agreement of
Sale.

4. After execution of Agreement of the Sale, the plaintiff

approached the defendants and requested to execute the sale
deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. In
spite of several request the defendants have evaded the request
of the plaintiff and have postponed the execution of the sale
deed on one or the other pretext. Hence plaintiff got issued
OS_98/2018 4

legal notice dated 05.01.2018 to the defendants calling upon

them to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff
before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Pete on 19.11.2018. The said
legal notice was served to the defendants on 10.01.2018. In
spite of the same, the defendants have failed to execute the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff was
constrained to institute the present suit.

5. Upon service of suit summons the Defendants have

appeared through their counsel and have filed written
statement. The defendants in their written statement have
denied to all the averments made by the plaintiff and submits
that the present suit is not maintainable under the law and is
liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has created the sale
agreement to cheat them and they are illiterate persons. ***

3. The plaintiff taking advantage of the same has come up

with the present suit with the wrong boundaries in order to

make illegal gain. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

10. Based on the pleadings following Issues were framed

by this court:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant

has agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for
sum of Rs. 60,000/- has executed registered sale
deed on 13.02.2015 by obtaining advance amount
of Rs.50,000?

2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is always

ready and willing to perform his part of contract ?
OS_98/2018 5

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

specific performance of contract as sought for?

4. What order or decree?

11. The Plaintiff in order to prove his case got examined

himself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P10. and ins pite of giving sufficient opportunity was not
cross examined by the learned counsel for defendant. Further
the defendant has also not choose to lead any evidence. Hence,
the matter was posted for arguments.

12. Upon hearing and on perusal of the materials placed

on record this court proceeds to answer the following Issues as
hereunder:-

Issue No.1: In the Affirmative

Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative
Issue No.4: As per final order for
the following ;

REASONS

13. Issue No.1: This is a suit instituted by the Plaintiff

seeking relief of Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale
dated 13.02.2015 and for such other reliefs.

14. In lieu of Section 101 and 103 of Indian Evidence Act,

the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. In order to
prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 by
filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and as reiterated
the averments of the plaint. Further got marked 10 documents
as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
OS_98/2018 6

15. Ex.P1 is the registered Agreement of Sale dated

13.02.2015 which on perusal shows that the defendants had
executed the said document in favour of the plaintiff and
agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a sale
consideration of Rs.60,000/- and received earnest amount of
Rs.50,000/- before the witnesses and agreed to execute the
sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration amount of
Rs.10,000/-.

16. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the Computerized RTCs pertaining

to the suit properties standing in the name of the defendant
No.1. Ex.P3 is the legal notice dated 05.01.2018 issued by the
plaintiff to the defendants asking the defendants to execute the
sale deed in his favour by receiving the balance sale
consideration amount. Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 are the Postal Receipts
and Ex.P8 to Ex.P10 are the Postal Acknowledgments for
having sent the legal notice and for having received the same
by the defendants.

17. On perusal of Ex.P1 which is the agreement of sale

dated 13.02.2015 it is seen that, the defendants executed the
said document in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of
Rs.60,000/- with respect to the suit schedule properties and
had received sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff. Further it is
also seen that, the defendants had agreed to execute the
registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to
suit properties by receiving the balance consideration amount.
Further on perusal of the Ex.P2 and 3 it can be seen that, the
defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession of the
suit properties and hence got executed Ex.P1 in favour of
plaintiff.
OS_98/2018 7

15. In this regard admittedly Ex.P1 is a registered

document. It is well settled law that the registered document
carries its own presumption and that it is value. In this regard
the reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that,

“27. There is a presumption that a registered

document is validly executed. A registered
document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in
law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a
person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption. In the instant case, Respondent No.1
has not been able to rebut the said presumption.”

16. In accordance with the principle laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case it can be
seen that the onus of proof lies on the defendants to rebut the
presumption that Ex.P1 was not validly executed. However in
the case at hand though the defendants have appeared before
the court and filed written statement, have not put forth any
evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Ex.P1 being the
Registered Agreement of Sale dated 13.02.2015 is validly
executed. Such being the case the preponderance of
probability would be in favour of the plaintiff herein.
Therefore, this court proceeds to answer Issue No.1 in the
Affirmative.

17. Issue No.2: It is specific contention of the plaintiff that,

he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and to
pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- to the
defendants and same can be seen as Ex.P4 to Ex.P10. It is
relevant at this stage to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
OS_98/2018 8

Supreme Court in Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha, (2005) 7

SCC 534 wherein it is held as follows:

“12. The basic principle behind Section 16(c)

read with Explanation (ii) is that any person
seeking benefit of the specific performance of
contract must manifest that his conduct has been
blemishless throughout entitling him to the
specific relief. The provision imposes a personal
bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of
the conduct of the person seeking relief. If the
pleadings manifest that the conduct of the
plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of
the plaint he should not be denied the relief.”

18. On perusal of the plaint and the material placed on

record which are unchallenged and unrebutted. This court is
of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that the defendants
executed agreement of sale in his favour. In accordance with
the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this
court has carefully perused the pleadings of the plaintiff and
Ex.P4 to Ex.P10. Ex.P4 is the legal notice dated 05.01.2018
issued by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to
execute the sale deed in his favour by receiving the balance
sale consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-. Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 are
the Postal receipts, Ex.P8 to Ex.P110 are the Postal
acknowledgments. In reference to the same, it shows that the
plaintiff was ready and willing perform his part of contract.
Hence, in view of the above observation this court proceeds to
answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.

19. Issue No.3: The defendants have filed their written

statement contending that the said Agreement of Sale was
executed for the purpose of security for the loan amount that
OS_98/2018 9

was borrowed by the defendants. But the defendants have not

produced any cogent documents in support of their
contention. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity the
defendants have failed to cross examine PW.1 and also has
failed to lead their evidence. Hence the conduct of the
defendants have to be taken in to consideration in the present
case on hand. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to decision
rendered in the Hon’ble Apex court in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in
Vidyadhar Vs Manik Rao and another, the Hon’ble Apex
court has held that where a party to the suit does not appear
into the witness box and states his own case on oath and
does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side.
A presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not
correct. Thus in view of the ratio laid down the afore said case
it has to be presumed that the case set up by the defendants
is incorrect. Thus until contrary is proved the court is bound
to presume that the defendants executed the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff and failed to perform their part of
contract.

20. In view of the aforesaid findings and in observance of

the conduct of the defendants who have not contested the
case of the plaintiff nor has led any evidence by producing
documents in support of their claim. This court observes that,
the plaintiff and defendants executed Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale
dated 13.02.2015 and that the plaintiff paid the earnest
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff has also
established before the court that he is ready and willing to
perform his part of contract. Such being the case this court
observes that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Specific
OS_98/2018 10

Performance of Agreement of Sale. Accordingly this court

proceeds to answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.

21. Issue No.4:- In view the aforesaid findings this court

proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER

The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby

decreed with cost.

The Defendants are hereby directed to

execute the Registered sale deed in favour
of the Plaintiff by receiving balance sale
consideration of Rs.10,000/- within a
period of 2 months from the date of this
order and to deliver the possession to the
plaintiff.

If the Defendants fail to execute the

registered sale deed by receiving the
balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-,
the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale
deed registered in accordance with law.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by
me and then pronounced in the open Court on 07.12.2024)

(Arpitha K.V.)
II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC.,
K.R.Pete.

ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined by Plaintiff:
PW-1 : M.B.Javaregowda
OS_98/2018 11

List of documents exhibited by Plaintiff:

Ex.P.1 : Registered Agreement of sale,
Ex.P.1(a) to (3) : Signatures of defendant, witnesses
and scribe
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Computerized RTCs
Ex.P.4 : Copy of Legal notice
Ex.P.5 to 7 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P.8 to 10 : Postal Acknowledgments
List of witnesses examined by Defendants:

List of documents exhibited by Defendants:

- NIL -

II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC.,

K.R.Pete.