Buyer Who Paid ₹75,000 Wins Sale-Deed Order For Late Seller’s Undivided Half-Share After Karnataka HC Rejects Unpleaded Hardship

The plaintiff alleged that Ashok agreed to sell his half share in two properties for ₹3,00,000 and received ₹75,000 as earnest money under an agreement dated 7 October 2005.

After Ashok’s death, the plaintiff sought specific performance against his legal representatives, asserting readiness and willingness to pay the balance.

The defendants denied the agreement and alleged forgery.

The trial court found the agreement, payment and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness proved, but refused specific performance and ordered repayment of the earnest money with interest, reasoning in part that the agreement concerned an undivided share and that specific performance would cause hardship.

The First Appellate Court affirmed.

In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the appeal had abated against respondents 1 and 2.

The Court considered the discretionary framework for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act and the principle that a proved agreement, coupled with the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, should not be denied enforcement on an unsupported plea of hardship.

It relied on Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao (2019) 6 SCC 233 for the proposition that hardship cannot ordinarily be raised to defeat specific performance when it was neither pleaded nor made the subject of an issue.

It also relied on Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 517, in support of enforcing an agreement concerning the vendor’s identifiable undivided share.

The Court referred as well to Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1332, and Vishnu v. Abdulgani, RSA Crob. No. 53/2009 c/w RSA No. 3198/2006 (Karnataka High Court, 3 August 2012).

Both courts below had found the agreement, payment of earnest money, and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness proved; those findings were not challenged by the defendants in the appeal.

Yet the courts refused specific performance on hardship grounds without a specific pleading or framed issue on hardship.

The High Court held that the defendants’ circumstances, including the evidence that they had no other property, did not cure that procedural and evidentiary deficiency.

Nor was the need to pursue partition after obtaining a decree for the executant’s undivided share, by itself, a sufficient reason to refuse specific performance.

The decree was therefore limited to the share of the agreement’s executant.

It set aside the judgments of the courts below and decreed specific performance, directing the defendants, as the legal heirs of Ashok, to execute a registered sale deed in respect of Ashok’s share within three months.

The plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance consideration within one month, if not already deposited; in default of execution, the sale deed could be executed through the Court.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.