CHANDRASHEKHAR V , ,M. JAGADEESH vs JAIRAM REDDY M — RSA/528/2010

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 16-Dec-2010

CNR: KAHC010161532010

Filing Number

RSA/528/2010

Filing Date

25-Feb-2010

Registration No

RSA/528/2010

Registration Date

25-Feb-2010

Judge

H.p.sandesh

Coram

H.p.sandesh

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

RSA ( 136 )

Sub-Category

SP-Specific Performance Suit ( 105 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRASHEKHAR V , ,M. JAGADEESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAIRAM REDDY M

  2. 2.MUNITHIMMA REDDY @ SUBBARAYAPPA

  3. 3.NANJAMMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    H.p.sandeshView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA 528/2010 - Chandrashekhar V. & M. Jagadeesh v. Jairam Reddy & Others Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Judge: H.P. Sandesh Date: 12 June 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the second appeals, setting aside the Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. Key Facts - Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement to purchase agricultural land (Sy.No.75/2, Huskur Village) from defendants for Rs. 1,22,500 - Agreement dated 11.07.1999 (Ex.P1) with Rs. 25,000 earnest money paid - Plaintiff claimed full payment made through subsequent endorsements, including Rs. 45,000 via cheque to clear prior claim of one Dayananda Reddy - Defendants later executed sale deed favoring third party (05.10.2004) despite agreement with plaintiff - Mutation/Khatha transferred to defendants only in August 2004, after plaintiff's payments Core Issues 1. Whether sale agreement existed and was validly executed 2. Whether plaintiff paid entire consideration 3. Whether plaintiff entitled to specific performance Court's Reasoning The court found: - Document Ex.P1 genuine: Defendants admitted signatures despite denying agreement - Payments proven: Multiple endorsements acknowledged by defendants; Rs. 45,000 cheque payment substantiated by witness (PW5) - Defendants' defense false: Ex.D1 (prior agreement with third party) falsified by contradictory testimony of defendants' own witness (DW1) regarding dates, amounts, and witnesses - Defendant No.2 failed cross-examination: Absence from witness box enabled adverse inference - Clear intention to defraud: Sale deed to third party executed immediately after mutation to defeat plaintiff's claim Order Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are directed to execute sale deed in favor of plaintiff based on agreement Ex.P1. If they fail, plaintiff has liberty to enforce the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Final Hearing

    H.p.sandesh

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  8. 24-Feb-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    T.G. Shivashankare Gowda

  9. 15-Oct-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    Ashok S.kinagi

  10. 30-Aug-2024

    Orders

    Ashok S.kinagi

  11. 12-Aug-2024

    Orders

    V Srishananda

  12. 18-Jul-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    V Srishananda

  13. 25-Jun-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    V Srishananda

  14. 02-Mar-2023

    Final Hearing

    G Basavaraja

  15. 09-Jun-2015

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  16. 09-Jun-2015

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  17. 20-Dec-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  18. 13-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  19. 13-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  20. 11-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  21. 07-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  22. 05-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  23. 31-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  24. 22-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  25. 08-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  26. 30-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  27. 25-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  28. 23-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  29. 19-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  30. 28-Aug-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  31. 01-Mar-2013

    Orders

    V.suri Appa Rao

  32. 30-Jan-2013

    Orders

    Aravind Kumar

  33. 29-Jan-2013

    Orders

    Aravind Kumar

  34. 03-Jan-2013

    Orders

    B.S Patil

  35. 03-Jan-2013

    Orders

    B.S Patil

  36. 10-Oct-2012

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  37. 27-Sep-2012

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  38. 20-Sep-2012

    Admission

    S.abdul Nazeer

  39. 23-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  40. 13-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  41. 13-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  42. 02-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  43. 31-Jan-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  44. 25-Jan-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  45. 23-Jan-2012

    Admission

    B.sreenivase Gowda

  46. 24-May-2011

    Admission

    B.sreenivase Gowda

  47. 15-Mar-2011

    Admission

    Anand Byrareddy

  48. 16-Dec-2010

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 25-Feb-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/528/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA 528/2010 - Chandrashekhar V. & M. Jagadeesh v. Jairam Reddy & Others Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Judge: H.P. Sandesh Date: 12 June 2026 Decision The High Court allowed the second appeals, setting aside the Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. Key Facts - Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement to purchase agricultural land (Sy.No.75/2, Huskur Village) from defendants for Rs. 1,22,500 - Agreement dated 11.07.1999 (Ex.P1) with Rs. 25,000 earnest money paid - Plaintiff claimed full payment made through subsequent endorsements, including Rs. 45,000 via cheque to clear prior claim of one Dayananda Reddy - Defendants later executed sale deed favoring third party (05.10.2004) despite agreement with plaintiff - Mutation/Khatha transferred to defendants only in August 2004, after plaintiff's payments Core Issues 1. Whether sale agreement existed and was validly executed 2. Whether plaintiff paid entire consideration 3. Whether plaintiff entitled to specific performance Court's Reasoning The court found: - Document Ex.P1 genuine: Defendants admitted signatures despite denying agreement - Payments proven: Multiple endorsements acknowledged by defendants; Rs. 45,000 cheque payment substantiated by witness (PW5) - Defendants' defense false: Ex.D1 (prior agreement with third party) falsified by contradictory testimony of defendants' own witness (DW1) regarding dates, amounts, and witnesses - Defendant No.2 failed cross-examination: Absence from witness box enabled adverse inference - Clear intention to defraud: Sale deed to third party executed immediately after mutation to defeat plaintiff's claim Order Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are directed to execute sale deed in favor of plaintiff based on agreement Ex.P1. If they fail, plaintiff has liberty to enforce the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case