- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100190 OF 2020 (SP-) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2020 IN RFA NO. 100190 OF 2020 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2(a) SMT. SHRIDEVI W/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2(b) KUMAR MAHANTESH S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 2(c) KUMAR MAHESH S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/AT NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2(d) SMT. SAVITA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT TUBACHI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHADEV S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1(a) SRI. RAYAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 1(b) SMT. KRISHNABAI D/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, AND ALSO PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02/11/2023. 2. SMT. PRAMILA W/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. 3. SRI. SHIVAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R1(B), R2 & R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN O.S.NO.45/2009 DATED 31.01.2020 AND DECREE THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RFA NO.100191 OF 2020 (SP) : BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2(a) SMT. SHRIDEVI W/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2(b) KUMAR MAHANTESH S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, 2(c) KUMAR MAHESH S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL R/AT NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 2/11/2023. 2(d) SMT. SAVITA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT TUBACHI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHADEV S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 1(a) SRI. RAYAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 1(b) SMT. KRISHNABAI D/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, AND ALSO PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02/11/2023. 2. SMT. PRAMILA W/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. 3. SRI. SHIVAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a), R1(b), R2 & R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN O.S.NO.45/2009 DATED 31.01.2020 AND DECREE THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.45/2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi1. 2. The appellants in both these appeals are the plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the defendants. The said suit was instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of the sale agreement and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The respondents/defendants not only contested the suit by disputing and denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiffs, but also filed a counter claim seeking for a direction to the appellants/plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.1. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 3. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement contesting the suit and also made a counterclaim seeking a direction to the plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to him. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed separate written statements, contesting the claims of the plaintiffs, and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. By the impugned judgement and decree, the Trial Court rejected the prayer for specific performance sought for by the appellants/plaintiffs and passed the following: “ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance stands dismissed. However the plaintiffs claim regarding alternative relief is allowed for Rs.3,05,650/- with interest at Rs.6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The defendants are entitled to possession of suit schedule properties within a week from date of this order. The defendants are also entitled to mesne profit from the date when possession became illegal. The defendants are entitled to costs of proceedings. Draw preliminary decree.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, insofar as it relates to denying the relief of specific performance of contract, and directing grant of refund of ₹3,05,650/-, the appellants have preferred RFA.No.100190/2020. Whereas, RFA.No.100191/2020 has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it allows the counterclaim of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 6. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed between the same parties, they are taken up together for consideration and are disposed of by this common order. 7. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as their respective ranks before the Trial Court. 8. A perusal of the material on record indicates that it is the specific contention of the appellants that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, commencing with a sale agreement dated 09.08.2002, executed by the defendants in favour of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 plaintiffs. This was followed by several transactions between the parties, culminating in a final sale agreement dated 15.05.2006, also said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. They issued a lawyer’s notice dated 23.08.2007, which was avoided by the defendants. In response, the defendants sent a reply dated 30.08.2007 to the plaintiffs, who got issued a paper publication dated 24.03.2009. After issuing another notice dated 03.03.2009, and since the defendants failed to come forward to perform their part of the contract and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the said suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendants had put them in actual and physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, in part performance of the contract. 9. As stated supra, the defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, various allegations and claims made by the plaintiffs were denied. The defendant No.1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 specifically disputed the sale agreements as well as the alleged payment of sale consideration by the plaintiffs to the defendants. He also denied the factum of handing over possession of the suit schedule properties and raised several contentions in support of his defence, as set out in his written statement. In addition to seeking dismissal of the suit, the defendant No.1 also filed a counterclaim seeing for a direction to the plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to him. 10. The defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement, which was adopted by the defendant No.3, who also disputed and denied the various allegations and claim made by the plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the suit. 11. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following: ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that defeated Nos.1 & 2 have executed agreement of sale dated: 09.08.2002 by receiving earnest money of Rs.12,75,000/-? 2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they were/are ready and willing to perform their part of contract? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 3. Whether suit is time barred as contended in para No.5? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for? 5. What order or decree? 12. The plaintiffs have examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to Exs.P52 were marked on their behalf. The defendants had got examined defendant No.1 as DW.1 and two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D45 were marked on their behalf. 13. After hearing the parties, the Trial court answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative by holding that the sale agreement dated 09.08.2002 was proved, but only a sum of ₹3,05,650/- had been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards advance and part payment of the sale consideration. Although the Trial Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, the Issue No.2, which related to the plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness, was answered against them by holding that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and consequently, were not entitled to the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance. Accordingly, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting only the relief of refund of advance amount of ₹3,05,650/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The Trial Court also decreed the counterclaim put forth by defendant No.1 and directed the plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to the defendants within one week from the date of impugned judgment and decree. 14. As stated supra, the impugned judgment and decree refusing specific performance sought for by the plaintiffs and decreeing the counterclaim for possession, is assailed by the appellants in the present appeal. 15. The points that arise for consideration in the present appeals are: 1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for specific performance sought for by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the counter claim put forth by defendant No.1 against the plaintiffs? 4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal? Regarding Point No. 1 : 16. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, while it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they paid a total sale consideration of ₹15,80,650/- in instalments during a period 2002-06 out of a revised sale consideration of ₹34,20,650/-, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs paid only a sum of ₹3,05,650/- to the defendants and did not accept the contentions of the plaintiffs as regards the remaining sale consideration alleged to have been paid by them. In this context, a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that while considering the said Issue No.1, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties has not been considered by the Trial Court in their proper perspective. In fact, though the appellants/plaintiffs, had produced documentary evidence in the form of Exs.P5 to P9, in order to substantiate - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 their contention regarding the sale transaction and the advance sale consideration paid by them, the Trial Court has not considered or appreciated the said documents in their proper perspective. 17. On the other hand, instead of dealing with Issue Nos.1 to 4, which relate to different aspects pursuant to the rival contentions put forth by the parties, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in rendering composite findings on all issues, which is sufficient to indicate that the Trial Court has not adequately and appropriately considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both the parties. It is also relevant to state that the Trial Court does not render any finding as regards Ex.P.9 dated 15.05.2006, which is the last of the agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs, which indicate that apart from the advance sale consideration said to have been paid by the plaintiffs, a fixed deposit standing in the name of the plaintiffs had been furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards the sale consideration. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the non consideration of the material on record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 would vitiate the impugned judgment and decree requiring the same to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 18. As stated earlier, specific contentions have been put forth by both the sides as regards execution of the agreements, payment of sale consideration, etc., none of which have been considered in proper perspective by the Trial Court and consequently, we deem it just and appropriate to answer Point No.1 by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remitting matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. Regarding Point No.2 : 19. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the agreement dated 09.08.2002, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs, further sums of money were paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and on 15.05.2006 (Ex.P9), the defendants executed an agreement reiterating the agreement/transactions and receiving a fixed deposit in a sum of ₹12,00,000/- from the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. As - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 stated supra, the Trial Court has not dealt with Ex.P9 dated 15.05.2006 nor rendered any findings in this regard. So also, the Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the plaintiffs had issued lawyer's notice at Ex.P10 dated 23.08.2007 to the defendants which was not served upon them as can be seen from the postal records at Exs.P11 to P26, which were also not considered by the Trial Court. So also the reply dated 30.12.2008 at Ex.P.27 issued on behalf of the defendants as well as the paper publication at Exs.P29, dated 24.03.2009 and the notice dated 03.03.2009 at Ex.P30, immediately prior to the institution of the suit filed on 26.05.2009 have also not been considered by the Trial Court while recording the finding that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract. This non consideration of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties in relation to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the impugned judgment and decree that deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law on this score also. Point No.2 is also accordingly answered. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 Regarding Point No.3 : 20. In his written statement, in addition to disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 specifically put forth a counter claim seeking possession of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs. The relevant partition of the counter claim put forth by defendant No.1 is as under: “16. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation the defendant by way of counter claim are seeking the actual possession of the suit lands and further means profits from the plaintiffs as owner of the lands. The defendants is paying court fee on the counter claim u/s 29 r/w sec 7 (2) of KCF & SV Act and have paid court fee on Rs.1000/-. They have valued their claim for the past mesne profits for three years at Rs.7,50,000/- and have paid court fee 18. Those allegations in the plaint which are not specifically traversed in this written statement, may not be constructed as admitted. For the above stated reasons, it is prayed that the plaintiffs suit be kindly dismissed and counter claim be allowed directing the plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the suit lands to the defendants alongwith past mesne profits of Rs. 7,90,000/-and future mesne profits and costs of the suit.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 21. It is a matter of record that, to the aforesaid counter claim put forth by defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have filed their written statement dated 11.10.2019. 22. Despite the aforesaid pleadings of the parties in relation to the counter claim and the written statement filed by the plaintiffs to the counter claim, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in not framing any issue in this regard and instead the Trial Court proceeds to straight away allow and decree the counter claim in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs without there being any issue, reasoning, finding, observation etc., in this regard. 23. Under these circumstances, we are on the considered opinion that, the absence of issue, evidence, findings, reasoning, etc., by the Trial Court in relation to the counter claim, which was summarily decreed in favour of the defendant against the plaintiffs, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserved to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 Regarding Point No.4 : 24. As stated herein before, we have already come to the conclusion that the Trial Court did not consider the pleadings and evidence of the parties before recording the finding as regards the sale agreement/transactions and payment of advance sale consideration by the plaintiffs to the defendants; so also the Trial Court did not consider the material on record before passing the impugned judgment and decree holding that the plaintiffs had not established readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and without raising / framing any issue and without recording any findings / observations, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the counter claim of the defendants against the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, having regard to the various lacunae, omissions, errors, discrepancies, etc., in the impugned judgment and decree, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh by leaving/keeping all issues open to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court afresh in - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. Point No.4 is answered accordingly. 25. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER 1. Both the appeals are hereby allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.45/2009 are hereby set aside. 3. Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for re- consideration afresh in accordance with law. 4. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27.10.2025 without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court. 5. All rival contentions of the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. 6. Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce additional, oral or documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 7. The registry of this Court is directed to refund entire Court fee paid by the appellants on both - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB RFA No. 100190 of 2020 C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020 RFA.No.100190/2020 and RFA.No.100191/2020 back to the appellants forthwith / immediately without any delay. 8. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellants / plaintiffs to file application seeking refund of sum of Rs.26,72,650/- paid by them before the Competent Authority towards stamp duty and penalty on 14.08.2018, in respect of the document dated 09.08.2002 at Ex.P.5. If such application/request is made, the competent authority shall consider the said request and proceed further in accordance with law and in terms of Section 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and conclude the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible. In view of the disposal of both the appeals, pending applications, if any in both the appeals do not survive for consideration and same are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP,EM CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22