Writ Petition No. 26044 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26044 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ARATHI P AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE SRI.D. MURALI 2. SRI . YOGESH M
Legal Reasoning
this Court has held that the survey sketch is not necessary for registration of the documents, the said order has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100299/2021 on 18.12.2021. Even the Division - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 Bench judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18939/2009 and connected matter disposed of on 18.03.2016 has been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP Nos.15837-15838 of 2016 on 11.07.2016.
Arguments
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE SRI.D. MURALI PETITIONERS NOS. 1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO 136/A, 6TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, NEAR RAMA MANDIR RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560010. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA 3. SRI D UDHAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI A.R. DEVARAJULU NAIDU R/AT NO W-22-733, 3RD CROSS VIVEK NAGAR, ROBERTSONPET POST KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563122. 4. SRI BALAJI V AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O LATE SRI D VEERA RAGHAVAN 5. SRI ANIL KUMAR V AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE SRI D VEERA RAGHAVAN - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 PETITIONER NOS. 4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO 136/A, 6TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK,NEAR RAMA MANDIR RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560010 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PATTABI C., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SADIQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O . SRI SHAIK FAREED BALAKRISHNA LAYOUT I CROSS, MINI IBRAHIM ROAD ROBERTSONPET POST KOLAR GOLD FIELDS - 563122. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.AJAY J NANDALIKE., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PRIYANKA S BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IN IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A PASSED THE EX.NO.11/2022 DATE: 13.10.2023 BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtors under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF in Ex.No.11/2022, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 whereby the application filed by the judgment debtors under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed. 2. The decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 16.05.2016. After service of summons, defendant appeared through counsel. The parties have settled the matter before the Lok- adalath. The compromise decree has been passed on 29.07.2019. Since, as per the compromise decree, the judgment debtor has not executed the sale deed, the decree holder filed Ex.No.11/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF. After appearance of the judgment debtors, he filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Performance Act seeking for rescinding the contract on the ground that the decree holder has not complied the condition mentioned in the compromise decree. The application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtors are before this Court. 3. The relevant portion of the compromise decree is extracted below: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 “It is ordered and decreed that, as per the terms of compromise petition, the GPA holder of defendant agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within one month from 23.07.2019 by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.61,00,000/- (Rs.Sixty one lakhs only) as the defendant has to obtain Survey sketch with respect to the schedule property for which the plaintiff has agreed for the same, if the defendant or her GPA holder not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within that period, then the plaintiff has right to execute the decree as per the law.” 4. By reading the above paragraph, it is very clear that judgment debtor has to register the sale deed within a period of one month by receiving the balance sale consideration and also directed to obtain Survey Sketch with respect to the suit property for execution of the sale deed. As per Section 131(c) of the Land Revenue Act, Survey Sketch is necessary to register the documents. Therefore, it is very clear from the compromise decree that the judgment debtor has to arrange the Survey - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 Sketch and be ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. As per Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, the purchaser or the lessee does not within a period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow it or pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded. In this case, as per the compromise decree, no time limit has been fixed to deposit the money in the court. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and directed the decree holder to deposit an amount of Rs.61,00,000/- within a period of two months from the date of the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that pursuant to that, he has deposited the same. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12320 WP No. 26044 of 2023 7. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Civil Appeal No.10193/2024 is a suit for specific performance, wherein it is held that the plaintiff should be ready to perform his part of the contract and he should show his readiness and willingness. Even in the judgment of Madras High Court in A.S.No.425/2012 & CMP No.19205/2022, wherein it is held that it is a suit for specific performance where the plaintiff should prove his readiness and willingness. The said case is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, compromise decree is already passed and the petition is for execution of the compromise decree. 8. In respect of the order which is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, of this Court in W.P.No.103813/2021 disposed of on 05.10.2021, wherein
Decision
9. In view of the above, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39