- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1837 OF 2014 (SP) BETWEEN: KORATABANDIHANUMANTHAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O HIREGONIGERE VILALGE HONNALI TALUK-577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS PETTY BUSINESSMEN R/O GOVINAHALU VILLAGE AND POST HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 217 2. T THIPPESHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. T MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 4 ARE CHILDREN OF HANUMANTHAPPA R/A GOVINAHALY VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK-577601 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 5. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O TUMMINAKATTE VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TLAUK-581115 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.14/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARIHAR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.220/1995 ON THE FILE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HONNALI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2014 passed in R.A.No.14/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihara and the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.220/1995 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and received a sum of Rs.18,000/- and agreed to execute a registered sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration amount and after obtaining the boundary of the suit schedule property by conducting measurement and an agreement of sale was entered on 14.07.1992. It is further contended that as of the date of the said agreement, defendant No.1 delivered the possession of land to the plaintiff and he is in exclusive possession of the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiff was/is always - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant did not perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff, to establish that he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract got issued a legal notice on 06.07.1995, seeking that the defendants receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. The defendants neither replied nor complied with the demand made by the plaintiff in the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant No.1 filed a written statement , denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and received an amount of Rs.18,000/- and it is denied that the defendants have delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the said property is the joint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 family property of defendant No.1 and his sons and they are depending upon the said property for their livelihood. Further, the suit is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file a suit. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 5. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.2 and defendant No.5 were impleaded and filed a written statement, denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the suit property is the ancestral property of the defendants and defendant No.1 has no saleable right, interest over the suit property. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 defendant No.2 is examined as DW-4 and examined two witnesses as DW-2 to DW-3 and marked 18 documents as Ex.D.1 o Ex.D.18. 8. The trial Court, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, filed an appeal in R.A.No.14/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Harihara. The first appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2014 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 and executed a sale agreement which is marked as Ex.P.1 and also examined the attesting witnesses to the Ex.P.1. The Courts below have not properly considered the evidence on record and committed error in passing impugned judgment. He also submits that the plaintiff to establish readiness and willingness, got issued a legal notice, marked as Ex.P.2. But the Courts below have answered that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, alleging that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly the defendant No.1 received Rs.18,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 towards the advance sale consideration amount and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount at the time of execution of a registered sale deed. 14. The plaintiff, to establish that he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, got issued a legal notice calling upon defendant No.1 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 did not reply to the legal notice. Defendant No.1 denied the execution of a sale agreement, receipt of advance sale consideration amount and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff regarding the said sale agreement. 15. Both Courts below have categorically recorded the findings of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant No.1 executed Ex.P.1 and there is a overwriting in Ex.P.1. The Courts below have recorded their finding that the document is concocted and plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the execution of the sale - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 agreement. Defendants also denied the signature on Ex.P.1. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to refer Ex.P.1 to the expert for opinion on Ex.P.1. hence, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the execution of a sale agreement and his readiness and willingness. 16. As observed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of a sale agreement. Both Courts below have categorically recorded the findings of fact against the plaintiff. Both Courts below are justified in passing impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 23.10.2014 passed in R.A.No.14/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihara - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22813 RSA No. 1837 of 2014 and the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.220/1995 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali, are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A.s, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24