- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46077 RSA No. 1615 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1615 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI SRINIVAS, S/O VARADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT: THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573211. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. C.D. JANAKI, W/O H.E. ANNAPPA, AGED ABNOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT: KORAMANGALA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573211. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.119/2023 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46077 RSA No. 1615 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The suit is filed for the relief of specific performance on the ground that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property for valuable consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards part consideration and agreed to receive the balance consideration at the time of execution of registered sale deed and executed registered agreement of sale dated 03.09.2013. The plaintiff has pleaded that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence filed the suit for the relief of specific performance. 3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement. The Trial Court framed an additional issue - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46077 RSA No. 1615 of 2024 recasting the same and an opportunity was given to both the parties. When D.W.1 was cross-examined, the document of Ex.P.1 was confronted to him and he admits his signature in document Ex.P.1. The Trial Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RATTAN v. NIRMALA GILL reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 936, held that the document is presumed to be genuine, if the same is registered and the onus to prove otherwise is on the person who challenged the registered document. The defendant has not specifically denied the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and hence granted the relief of specific performance directing the defendant to receive the balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and to execute the sale deed. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on re-consideration of both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and also made an observation that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent through the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46077 RSA No. 1615 of 2024 process of Court dated 29.10.2021 is validated and the appeal was filed in 2023 after the registration of the sale deed and the appellant/defendant was permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the plaintiff/respondent before the Trial Court. 5. 5. Having considered the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the decree was already enforced and sale deed was also executed in favour of the respondent in the year 2021 itself and appeal was filed in 2023 after the execution of the sale deed and the same is also taken note of. Once there was an admission on the part of the appellant that Ex.P.1 sale agreement was executed and the same was also a registered document and the same is not rebutted by placing any documentary evidence before the Trial Court. When such being the case, the question of admitting the second appeal does not arise and no ground is made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit and frame substantial question of law. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46077 RSA No. 1615 of 2024 6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35