The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1330 OF 2014 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, S/O SRI RANGA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. 1(A). PRAFUFFLLA R. BHAT, YANA SUNGANDHI BHAT, W/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 1(B). SHIVANAND BHAT, S/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 1(C). VIVEKANANDA BHAY K, S/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O 16/211 QUATRES B 13A, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 104. 1(D). NANDHINI BHAT K, W/O SATIDH PAI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2-96/1, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, SUKANDAKATTE, PADUPERAR, BAJPE, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 142. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 2. MRS. PRAFULLA BHAT, W/O RADHAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT BALEPU HOUSE, MADHYA POST, VIA. KATIPALLA, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE. (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: SMT. RADHU HENGASU, (SINCE DEAD) BY HIS LR, 1. RAMESH POOJARY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 1(A). SMT. RATHNA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMESH POOJARY, 1(B). VIJAYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMESH POOJARY, 1(C). YASHODHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE RAMESH POOJARY, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HONNAYYA, AMIN COMPOUND, KAVOOR POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 2. SMT. DEVAKI, W/O MUTHAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO.21-101, BALEPU HOUSE, MADHYA POST, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2019, APPEAL AGAINST R1(A) IS DISMISSED AS ABATED; R1(B) AND R1(C) ARE SERVED)
Legal Reasoning
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE IN JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20.8.2014 PASSED R.A.NO.141/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.9.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.756/2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MANGALORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014, passed in R.A.No.141/2006 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, and the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.756/2001 on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mangalore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff claims to be a Mulageni tenant regarding the land bearing Sy.No.307/2 measuring 01 acre 70 cents and another item i.e., Sy.No.307/1 of land under Mulageni Deed dated 29.06.1953. It is alleged that the defendants had agreed to purchase 0-14 cents of land in Sy.No.307/2 of Surathkal village from the plaintiff as per the agreement of sale dated 12.05.1982. It is contended that the defendants did not come forward to get the sale deed executed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR paying the consideration amount, and as such, the agreement did not materialise. The agreement became unenforceable, as it is barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff has proceeded to state that while entering into the agreement the defendants requested her to allow them to reside in the subject house, the plaintiff had allowed the defendants to reside in the house. The defendants are not interested in getting the registered sale deed executed from the plaintiff. The defendants are residing in the house against the wish of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff had terminated the permission granted to the defendants to occupy the house by issuing a notice dated 23.06.2001 and also calling upon the defendants to vacate and surrender the same to the plaintiff. As there was no compliance with the demand made under the notice, the plaintiff filed this instant suit for possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement. It is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR asserted that the defendants have paid the entire sale consideration amount, and the defendants contended that in part performance of the contract, the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants. It is contended that, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right to bring the suit against them, and hence, seeks dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues: Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are the permissive occupants in respect of unit property as pleaded in the plaint? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has terminated the license of the defendants as per the notice dated 23.06.2001 as pleaded in the plaint? 3) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR with them for the sale of suit property for a consideration of Rs.22,000/- as per the agreement dated 12.05.1982 as pleaded in the written statement?
Legal Reasoning
4) Whether Mr. Abdul Rahiman Barry is necessary party as pleaded in the written statement? 5) Whether the plaintiff for possession in respect of the suit property as prayed for? is entitled Additional Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit valued by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee is proper? 2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the above case? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 and P5. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 16 documents as Exs.D1 to D16. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing no both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR Nos.1 to 3, 5, additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative, and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 25.09.2006, and it was directed to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property within 2 months from the date of the judgment. 3.4. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.756/2001, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.141/2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether impugned judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Mangalore, in O.S.No.756/2001 dated 25.09.2006 is perverse, capricious and contrary to law? 2) Whether the judgment of the trial Court needs interference by this Court? 3) What order? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 3.5. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.756/2001 vide judgement dated 20.08.2014. 3.6. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law : the “When the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property sale to defendants under agreement dated 12.05.1982 under Ex.D1 and also handed over the possession of suit property in pursuance of the agreement for a sale consideration plaintiff Rs.26,000/- and paid the sum of Rs.22,000/- on the date of agreement and in furtherance to the said contract paid remaining amount of Rs.4,000/- on 06.04.1987 under Ex.D2, whether the defendants (appellants herein) could take the benefit of provisions of Section 53(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and retain the possession of suit property?” the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants, and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants on 12.05.1982, and accordingly, the plaintiff executed the sale agreement in favour of the defendants and in part performance of the contract, the possession and the suit property was delivered. He submits that the defendants have paid the entire sale consideration amount. Hence, there is no question of readiness and willingness. He submits that the possession of the defendants has to be protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’). He submits that, merely because the defendants have not filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, is not a ground to decline to protect the possession of the defendants under Section 53A of the Act of 1882. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 7. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHRIMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHI AND ANOTHER VS. PRALHAD BHAIROBA SURYAVANSHI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 3 SCC 676. He also submits that the plaintiff has admitted the signature on Ex.D2. Once the signature is admitted on documents, the contents of the documents are proved, and also placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA AND OTHERS VS. M/S GREEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS reported in (1990) 1 SCC 731. Hence, he submits that there was nothing to do in furtherance of the said agreement. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Section 53A of the Act of 1882. Both the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR property in favour of the defendants on 12.05.1982, and accordingly, executed the sale agreement in favour of the defendants. He submits that it was agreed that the defendants should paa the balance sale consideration amount, and get the sale deed executed within 12 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement. He submits that the plaintiff has not received the balance consideration of Rs.4,000/- as per Ex.D2. He submits that the plaintiff has issued a legal notice after 19 years from the date of execution of the sale agreement, i.e., on 23.06.2001. He submits that the defendants have failed to prove their readiness and willingness, and there is no compliance of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’). The plaintiff is entitled to recover possession from the defendants, as the defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’). Hence, he submits that both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR that the defendants have failed to prove that they are willing to perform their part of the contract, as well as regarding the payment of the balance sale consideration amount under Ex.D2. He also submits that merely admitting the signature on Ex.D2 does not amount to, proving the contents of the said document. He submits that to prove the contents of Ex.D2, the defendants have not examined any witnesses to establish that they have paid the balance sale consideration amount. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. Reg. Substantial question of law: There is no dispute that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants on 12.05.1982. Accordingly, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.22,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount, and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount was to be paid within 12 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement, and get the registered sale deed. It is the defence of the defendants that they had paid the balance sale consideration amount on 16.04.1987 and the plaintiff executed a receipt for having received the balance consideration amount. Additionally, the defendants have paid interest on the balance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 23.06.2001. They were called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff within 15 days. Despite the service of notice, the defendants untenably replied to the legal notice, and refused to vacate the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1. She has reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in- chief and produced the documents, i.e., Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Mulageni Deed, which discloses that the plaintiff had acquired the suit schedule property, Ex.P2 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR is the assessment receipt, Ex.P3 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants revoking the sale agreement, and called upon the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property, Ex.P4 is the postal acknowledgement which discloses that the notice issued to the defendants was served on them, Ex.P5 is the reply notice dated 17.07.2001. From the perusal of Ex.P5, there is no reference regarding the payment of the balance consideration amount of Rs.4,000/- on 16.04.1987, and the contents of the reply notice regarding the payment of the balance consideration amount are vague. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.26,000/-, and accordingly, the defendants paid Rs.22,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in part performance of the contract, delivered possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants. The said suggestion was admitted by PW.1. PW.1 denied - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs.4,000/- with interest and also denied the execution of Ex.D2. The plaintiff also examined one Smt.Devaki as PW.2. She is the aunt of the plaintiff, and she deposed that the plaintiff had acquired the suit schedule properties under Mulageni rights as per Mulageni dated 29.06.1953, and the plaintiff is in possession of 11 1/4th cents of the land in Sy.No.307/2 which contain a building bearing door No.21- 101 and 21-101/1. The defendants approached the plaintiff, and requested to sell the suit schedule property. There was an agreement in that regard. The agreement did not materialize as the defendants did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a registered sale deed. Nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination, to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2. 11. Conversely, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. He deposed that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He agreed to sell the suit - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR schedule property for a consideration of Rs.26,000/- and accordingly, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.22,000/- and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount within 12 months, executing a sale agreement dated 12.05.1982. It is stated that the defendants paid the balance sale consideration amount in 1987, and accordingly, the plaintiff executed a receipt for having received the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- . The plaintiff also delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. The plaintiff has no right to seek the relief of possession. He deposed that the defendants already performed their part of contract by paying the entire sale consideration amount. Hence, the question of readiness and willingness would not arise. In defence of the defendants, the defendants produced the documents. The defendants have produced the original sale agreement executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants on 12.05.1982. The said agreement is marked as Ex.D1. Ex.D2 is the receipt which - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR discloses that the defendants have paid the balance sale consideration amount with the interest to the plaintiff on 06.04.1987, Exs.D3 and D4 are the photos, Ex.D3(a) is the sale deed and Ex.D4(a) is a letter, Ex.D5 is the RTC extract of the suit land and Ex.D6 is the receipt for having paid the land revenue, and the said land revenue was paid by defendant No.1, Ex.D7 is the receipt for having paid the electricity charges, Exs.D8 and D9 are the receipts, Ex.D10 is the form No.19, Ex.D11 is the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants on 23.06.2001, wherein the plaintiff revoke the sale agreement dated 12.05.1982, and called upon the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and Ex.D12 is the reply to Ex.D11 dated 17.07.2001, Ex.D13 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex.D14 is the receipt issued by the Corporation, Mangalore, Ex.D15 is the notice dated 25.11.2003 issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff calling upon to convert the suit property to non agricultural land and to execute a sale deed and Ex.D16 is - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR the postal acknowledgement. During the course of cross- examination of DW.1, it was elicited that, before coming to the suit schedule property, he was residing at Kasaragodu, he had about one acre of agricultural land at Kasaragodu. He came to Mulki in 1981, and resided in a Mulki Venkataramana temple. It was elicited that he was unfamiliar of the contents of the agreement, as he is not an educated person. He studied at up to 2nd standard. Without going through the contents of the agreement, he signed it. It is elicited that the plaintiff affixed her signature and further, in the course of cross-examination, he deposed that he had taken the LTI of the plaintiff and, again deposed that he could not take the LTI of the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff executed the sale agreement dated 12.05.1982 as a separate document in favour of the defendants, and denied that there is a difference in the signature found on page Nos.2, 4 and 6 on Ex.D1. Again, DW.1 was recalled, and examined, and he produced the documents marked as Exs.Ex.D10 to - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR D16. It is elicited that he does not know what is written on Ex.D1, and he does not remember what is written in the plaint, and the defendants admits that he has not given any notice to the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered, and he does not remember what he instructed his counsel to file the written statement. 12. The defendants examined the witness as DW.2, who is the scribe to Ex.D1 and he deposed that the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.26,000/- and the defendant paid Rs.22,000/- towards advance sale consideration amount, and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid within 12 months and get the registered sale deed executed and also deposes that he has written Ex.D2 retarding the payment of Rs.4,000/-. 13. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants for a sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and accordingly, the defendants paid Rs.22,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount on 12.05.1982. Hence, the plaintiff executed a sale agreement. As per the recital of Ex.D1, the defendants were supposed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration amount within 12 months. The defendants did not pay the balance sale consideration amount within the specified time. The defendants have contended that they had paid the balance sale consideration amount on 16.04.1987, and the plaintiff had executed a receipt as per Ex.D2. I have perused Ex.D2. Although the defendants have contended that they have paid the balance sale consideration amount, the plaintiff denies receipt of the balance sale consideration amount as per ExD2. Though the plaintiff, PW.1 has admitted the signature on Ex.D2, but he has denied the contents of Ex.D2. The burden is on the defendants to establish that the entire sale consideration amount was - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR paid to the plaintiff. The defendants have not examined any witnesses to prove that they have paid the balance sale consideration amount within the stipulated period. The defendants issued a reply to the legal notice by the plaintiff, revoking the sale agreement. The defendants have not enforced the agreement of sale dated 12.05.1982 till date. The plaintiff has delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the contract. The defendants have claimed the protection of their possession under Section 53A of the Act of 1882. To fulfill the requirements of Section 53A of the Act of 1882, the party claiming protection under Section 53A of the Act has to establish readiness and willingness but this is not the only requirement contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963. It is also a requirement of Section 53A of the Act of 1882 required to be shown and the readiness and willingness are not only by formal pleading, but are required to be shown by both capacity, as well as, by mental attitude. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR Admittedly, I have perused the reply issued by the defendants. There is no whisper about the payment of the balance sale consideration amount on 16.04.1987, and there is also no reference about Ex.D2 in reply notice at Ex.D12 (P5). Thus, the defendants have failed to prove that the defendants were/ are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendants have failed to establish the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963. The defendants have been unable to meet the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963, and Section 53(A) of the Act of 1882. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the defendants have failed to establish the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963, and Section 53A of the Act of 1882, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. 14. Learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHRIMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHI (Supra). - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR There is no dispute regarding the proposition laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., a law of limitation does not apply to the plea taken in the defence by the defendants even though that defence as a claim made by him is not enforceable in a Court of law, being barred by limitation. Admittedly, the defendants have not enforced the sale agreement. However, the defendants have failed to meet the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963, and Section 53A of the Act of 1882. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants in the case of SHRIMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHI (Supra) does not apply to the case on hand. Further, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA (Supra) in which it is held that a person who signs a document that contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he has not read them, even though he is ignorant of the precise legal effect. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR 15. Here, in the case on hand, though, PW.1 admitted his signature on Ex.D2, but has denied the contents of Ex.D2. The burden is on the defendants to establish that they have paid the entire sale consideration amount as stated in Exs.D1 and D2. As observed above, the defendants have not examined any witnesses to prove the payment of balance sale consideration amount on 16.04.1987. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the defendants have to pay the entire sale consideration amount within 12 months. Admittedly, the defendants have not paid the balance sale consideration amount within the time stipulated in Ex.D1. Thus, the defendants have failed to prove that they are entitled to protection under Section 53(a) of the Act of 1882 and further, the defendants have not performed this obligations in furtherance of the sale agreement, the defendants have failed to prove the execution of Ex.D2. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to take a benefit of provision of Section 53A of the Act of 1882. Hence, both the courts - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:20818 RSA No. 1330 of 2014 HC-KAR below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law, partly in the affirmative. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending IA’s if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK