Karnataka HC Upholds Decree Enforcing ₹5 Lakh Land Sale To Woman, Rejects Seller’s Claim It Secured A ₹50,000 Loan

In brief

The question

1. Whether the concurrent findings that the agreement was a genuine sale agreement, rather than security for a loan, were perverse or otherwise gave rise to a substantial question of law.

The court held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

It also directed

The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, leaving the concurrent decree for specific performance undisturbed.

Pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

01Facts

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 26 December 2014 concerning 2.78 acres.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

The agreement recorded a total consideration of ₹5,00,000, of which ₹4,80,000 had been paid, with the balance payable on execution of the sale deed within three years.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

After the defendant did not comply with a notice demanding performance, the plaintiff filed suit.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

The defendant contended that the transaction was a loan of ₹50,000 and that the agreement had been obtained by misusing his illiteracy; he also asserted that the property was ancestral.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

The trial court decreed specific performance, and the first appellate court affirmed.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

The defendant appealed under Section 100 CPC.

¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the concurrent findings that the agreement was a genuine sale agreement, rather than security for a loan, were perverse or otherwise gave rise to a substantial question of law.

¶ 7–13 · pp. 5–10

ii.2. Whether the courts below erred in finding that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, including on the question of readiness and willingness.

¶ 7, 11–13 · pp. 5–10

03Law Applied

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises; concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed unless shown to be perverse.

¶ 13 · p. 10

The Court also considered the requirement of readiness and willingness in a specific-performance claim, as addressed by the courts below. No specific precedent or statutory provision governing that requirement was cited in the judgment.

¶ 11 · p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The courts below relied on the registered agreement, the evidence of the attesting witnesses and scribe, and the fact that the defendant’s children were consenting witnesses.

¶ 9–13 · pp. 7–10

They found that the defendant had not substantiated his allegations of fraud or a loan transaction.

¶ 9–13 · pp. 7–10

The first appellate court also noted that the defendant’s witnesses could not identify the relevant dates and rejected his claim that he believed he was executing a promissory note.

¶ 9–13 · pp. 7–10

The High Court found no demonstrated perversity in those factual findings and considered the defendant’s failure to reply to the demand notice alongside the other evidence; it therefore found no substantial question of law warranting second-appellate interference.

¶ 9–13 · pp. 7–10