Karnataka High Court in a recent judgement on a second appeal has decided that legal heirs must execute sale deed in favour of person with whom their father entered into an agreement regarding his sole property. The father of the appellants late Gangadhara having a self-acquired property which he had agreed to sale on 13.10.2010 which was before his death to the respondent and also took rupees 100000 against consideration value of rupees 150000. On 27.6.2013 the said Gangadhara died leaving his three legal heirs towards whom legal notice was issued by the respondent. But the said legal heirs even after acknowledging the letter not execute. Afterward the respondent filed a suit for specific performance in jurisdictional court.
In written response to the plaint filed by petitioner on jurisdictional court, defendants has denied every averments of plaintiff including (i) the execution of agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants, and (ii) the defendant’s father had received sale consideration from the plaintiff. Besides this the defendants also contended that the suit property is never under the sole ownership of their deceased father.
The jurisdictional court has passed judgement in favour of plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff had paid advance for purchasing the said property and also passed decree for execution of sale. Being aggrieved by the said judgement defendants had preferred an
appeal in the first appeal court and the said court had not intervened in the judgement of jurisdictional court.
Thereafter the defendants has preferred second appeal against the judgement and decree of the first appeal court. In the second appeal court learned advocate on behalf of the appellant has argued that the sons and wife of the deceased assignee/seller does not have any knowledge about the transaction of rupees 100000 regarding the sale agreement of such property, therefore decree for specific performance regarding execution of sale needs interference of this second appeal court.
In the contrary learned council for defendant has argued that the deceased father of the defendants is the purchaser of the schedule suit property, in support of their arguments they also have produced a certified copy of a sale deed dated 20.12.1994 between the deceased father of the appellants and the seller named Siddagangamma. Besides this defendant has also shown the bank transaction by exhibiting the passbook vide p6.Ex. p7 in favour of his pleadings that he has paid rupees 100000 at the time of sale agreement.
Cause title: 1. SMT RENUKAMMA 2. SRI MALLIKARJUNA 3. SRI CHARAN Versus 1. SRI SADAKSHARAPPA, RSA 341 of 2024.
Judgement Pronounce by the Hon’ble Justice H.P.SANDESH