- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1373 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.S. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SONAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KALAVARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SMT. BYAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA D/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SRI. S.N. MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 5. SHASHIKALA D/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 6. ASHWINI D/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.58/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.328/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This matter is listed for consideration of IA No.1/2024 there is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The suit is filed for the relief of specific performance. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is only a monetary transaction and not the sale transaction and answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative. The Trial Court in detail taken note of the evidence of P.W.2 who is the attesting witness comes and deposed before the Trial Court that it is only a monetary transaction and not a sale transaction and the same is taken note of in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Trial Court and in paragraph No.24 also while considering the material on record and comes to the conclusion that agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant is only a money transaction. Apart from that time was fixed for 2 years 6 months that too for obtaining 11E sketch. The Trial Court also taken note of suit was filed even within a period of 2 years 6 months and the same is also admitted in paragraph No.21 of the judgment that cumulative effect these facts coupled with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 evidence of P.W.2 and it also supports the contention of defendants that document as per Ex.P.1 was executed as security for loan and partly decreed the suit directing to pay the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum. The said order has challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.58/2023 and First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that it was only a money transaction and also taken note of P.W.2 is the attesting witness to Ex.P.1. The P.W.2 categorically stated that P.W.1 plaintiff doing real estate business as well as agriculture and same was discussed in the paragraph No.18 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court. Having taken note of the said admission as well as in paragraph No.22, admittedly, the government value of the suit property was Rs.10,50,000/- in the year 2016. However, the agreement of sale dated 19.08.2019 executed for sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was taken note of by the Appellate Court while considering the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 for the relief of Specific performance and taken note of value of the property more than the sale consideration shown in the agreement and having re-assessed the material on record, dismissed the suit and confirmed the judgment of the trial court as it was only a monetary transaction. 3. The counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that even the respondent is ready to execute the sale deed and the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court were cross-examined effectively by the defendant. When such being the case and when the concurrent finding was given on the factual aspects of the case and also one of the witnesses who is attesting witness to the sale agreement categorically deposes before the Court that it was only a monetary transaction and document Ex.P.1 was executed for security. Both the courts have taken note of the value of the property as well as sale consideration shown in the sale agreement and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19515 RSA No. 1373 of 2024 also the payment of money and also the document came into existence in lieu of monetary transaction. Apart from that P.W.1 is doing real estate and the same also taken note of. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law and no ground is made out to admit. Hence, second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, delay application I.A.No.1/2024 also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39