- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1710 OF 2011 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SAROJAMMA W/O.LATE D.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 2. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O.SRI SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS JARABANDANAHALLI MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TLAUK 3. C.N.HANUMEGOWDA S/O.LATE D.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 4. INDIRAMMA W/O.LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LACHALLAHALLI HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 AND: 1. SMT.KALPANA W/O.SURESH MAJOR, 783 THINDLU MAIN ROAD SAHAKARNAGAR BANGALORE 2. SMT.PADMA W/O.KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR, 517, I MAIN MILK COLONY, II STAGE DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10 3. SMT.BHARATHI W/O.G.T.THIMMEGOWDA MAJOR GADAMBACHAHALLI THIMMASANDRA POST (TUBUGERE HOBLI- DODDABALLAPUR TALUK) 4. SRI M.KRISHNAPPA S/O.LATE MAREGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS: (1) C.K.SATHYANARAYANA S/O.LATE M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE DODDATUMUKUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 163 (2) SMT.NAGAVENI D/O.LATE M.KRISHNAPPA W/O.SRI SHIVASHANKARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 ARALUMALLIGE ARALUMALLIGE POST DODDABALLAPUR KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT (3) SMT.MANJULA D/O.LATE M.KRISHNAPPA W/O.SRI RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALLALASANDRA ANTARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPUR KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5. SRI NAGARAJ S/O.LATE CHALUVAPPA MAJOR CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE DODDATUMUKUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 163 6. SRI K.GOPALAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS (1) SMT.LAKSHMI W/O.LATE GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE DODDATUMUKUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 163 (2) SMT.PRATHIBHA D/O.LATE GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ADGANAHALLI RAJANAKUNTE POST DODDATUMUKUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 163 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 (3) NANDAN S/O.LATE GOPALAIAH CHALLAHALLI VILLAGE DODDATUMUKUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 163 7. SMT.NALINA W/O.SHVIAKUMAR MAJOR (NEAR JEE FACTORY) DODDABALLAPUR 8. SMT.VARALAKSHMI W/O.MANJUNATHA MAJOR SAVANUR, HANABE POST (DODDABALLAPUR TALUK) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI C.NANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-5) SRI N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(1) TO 4(3) AND R-6(1) to 6(3); R-7 AND R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.04.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.133/2008 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-V, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.467/1997 BY ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 passed in R.A.No.133/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the first Appellate Court), whereby the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.467/1997 by the Additional II Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The original plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, for refund - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 of advance sale consideration amount paid by the plaintiff to defendant Nos.1 to 3. As agreement of sale was executed by Late D.Nanjundappa, who is none other than the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 05.05.1993. On execution of the same, the sale consideration amount was fixed at Rs.37,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- as advance sale consideration amount to Late D.Nanjundappa, father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. Late D.Nanjundappa had agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed. 3.1 Since the sale deed was not registered by Late D.Nanjundappa, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. But unfortunately, D.Nanjundappa died on 14.08.1993 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 being the legal representatives of Late D.Nanjundappa were requested to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 No.1 received balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- on 27.11.1995. But despite receipt of the said balance sale consideration amount, defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not come forward to register the sale deed. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, it is come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule property by virtue of three different sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Despite, the plaintiff being in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants. 3.2 The defendants appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the agreement of sale alleged to be executed by their deceased father and stated that the same is fabricated and forged document. The defendants admitted the fact that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 defendant Nos.4 to 6. Defendant No.1 denied the receipt of balance sale consideration amount as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 took up a plea that they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable sale consideration and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants stated that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside as they are the absolute owners by virtue of the registered sale deed. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.3 On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that D.Nanjundappa S/o Doddaiah has executed an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1993 agreeing to sell suit schedule property for Rs.37,000/- in favour of plaintiff and received Rs.18,000/- as an earnest amount? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that on the date of agreement itself said D.Nanjundappa had handed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 over possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants 1 to 3 have succeeded to the estate of deceased D.Nanjundappa? 4. Whether plaintiff proves that he was and he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 5. Whether plaintiff further proves that on 27.11.1995 1st defendant received balance of sale consideration Rs.19,000/- from the plaintiff and acknowledged the receipt of the same? 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05.05.1993? OR 7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of refund of Rs.37,000/- with interest from defendants 1 to 3? 8. Whether defendants 4 to 6 prove that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration? 9. What order or decree?" 3.4 In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 PWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P18, whereas the defendants examined defendant No.1 as DW.1, defendant No.5 as DW.2 and defendant No.6 as DW.3 and got marked documents as per Exs.D1 to D18. 3.5 On the basis of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3.6 Being aggrieved by dismissal of suit, the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff preferred an appeal in RA.No.133/2008 on several grounds urged therein. 3.7 The first Appellate Court, after hearing learned counsel for plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for defendants, formulated the following points for consideration: "i) Whether the appellant proves the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and this court interference is necessary? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 ii) What Order?" 3.8 On re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire evidence, the first Appellate Court did not find favour with the plaintiffs and accordingly, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and consequently, upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 3.9 Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of dismissal passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are before this Court questioning the same. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs that the impugned judgments and decree rendered by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and contrary to the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside and consequently, the suit requires to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 4.1 Learned counsel vehemently contends that his primary argument would be that the first Appellate Court has committed a serious error in law in formulating the point for consideration in the manner which it has done namely, one question for consideration as under: "Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and this Court interference is necessary?" 4.2 Learned counsel, in his erudite manner of submission, contends that in civil jurisprudence, there is a fundamental principle of law that while considering the first appeal against the judgment and decree under Section 96 of CPC, the first Appellate Court ought to have considered all that is required under Section 96 of CPC by reconsidering the entire materials placed before the trial Court as the very judgment rendered by the trial Court is questioned to be arbitrary, illegal and against the materials placed on record, rather than doing so, the first Appellate Court has considered the appeal as if it was an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 appeal filed under Order XLIII of CPC, so also in a casual mechanical manner. 4.3 Learned counsel further contends that the first Appellate Court has not passed the order in accordance with law. More specifically, it has violated the requirements under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. It is also contended by learned counsel that the first Appellate Court has totally failed to formulate correct elaborate points for consideration. On the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal, there is absolutely lack of application of mind by the first Appellate Court in deciding the appeal in the manner it has to be decided. Secondly, learned counsel contends that the first Appellate Court has committed an error in concluding that the agreement of sale executed by the deceased Nanjundappa was not a sale deed and that he has not received the advance sale consideration amount on 05.05.1993, so also, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has not received the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- on 27.11.1995. 4.4 It is also contended by him that both Courts have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court has committed an error in re-considering all the issues namely, issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 decided in the negative, thereby there is a total lack of application of mind in considering overall claim and the plea made by the original plaintiff before the trial Court. It is further contended that though the original plaintiff has relied upon 18 documents in support of his case, the trial Court has ignored all the documents and has passed a capricious order, which is liable to be set-aside, so also, the order of the first Appellate Court. On these grounds, he seeks to contend that there is substantial questions of law to be considered as formulated by him in this appeal and the same to be - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 framed by this Court and consequently, to hear the matter and secure the records and provide an opportunity to the appellants to establish that they have made out their case for setting aside the concurrent findings made by both the Courts. 5. Per contra, learned counsels for respondents- defendants contend that the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended by learned counsels that when the plaintiffs have come before this Court seeking for a relief, it is for the plaintiffs to establish their case by providing proper and cogent materials to the satisfaction of the Court. In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs alleged that an agreement of sale is executed by the deceased father of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have categorically denied the same and the amount having been received in the guise of the agreement of sale executed by Late D.Nanjundappa in favour of the original plaintiff. They have clearly stated that the agreement of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 sale so alleged is fabricated and forged document and at no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted or agreed by the deceased father Late D.Nanjundappa. Learned counsels further contend that defendant No.1 has categorically denied any balance sale consideration amount received and neither such amounts were paid to defendant No.1 nor defendant No.1 gave any receipt to that effect. The plaintiffs have not produced any substantial material cogent enough to believe that there was any agreement of sale executed by D.Nanjundappa in favour of the original plaintiff. There was no intention or need to receive sale consideration and to execute any agreement of sale in favour of the original plaintiff. It is further contended by learned counsels that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6, as she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. 5.1 It is further contended by learned counsels that the trial Court has rightly framed the relevant issues for - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 consideration in the suit proceedings. Upon framing of such issues, the trial Court held all the issues in the negative against the original plaintiff except issue Nos.3 and 8. Therefore, they contend that there is absolutely no perversity and illegality in the judgment rendered by the trial Court and the same is based on proper reasoning and on the basis of the material placed on record, which is well considered. 5.2 Secondly, learned counsels for respondents- defendants contend that technical objections raised by the appellants with regard to the first Appellate Court having not formulated correct points for consideration, is not justifiable for the reason that the even though it may be just one point formulated by the first Appellate Court, as to how the first Appellate Court has dealt with the first appeal will have to be looked into rather than the points formulated for consideration. 5.3 Learned counsels further contend that the first Appellate Court has dealt with the matter by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 re-appreciating and re-analysing the entire materials placed before the trial Court once again and upon re-appreciation of the same, having not found any substantial material in favour of the plaintiffs, has rightly dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of dismissal of the suit, which does not call for interference. 6. Having heard learned counsels for parties, the points that arise for consideration before this Court are that- "(i) Whether this appeal requires to be admitted to consider any substantial question of law? (ii) What order?" 7. It is not in dispute that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the daughters of Late D.Nanjundappa, who were the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, so also, the date of death of D.Nanjundappa is on 14.08.1993. Apparently, after the death of D.Nanjundappa, the suit schedule property - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 devolved on the defendant Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 exercising absolute right over the suit schedule property, sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 by virtue of the registered sale deeds. 8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, D.Nanjundappa executed an agreement of sale way back on 05.05.1993 by receiving an amount of Rs.18,000/- as advance payment towards total sale consideration amount of Rs.37,000/- to sell suit schedule property in favour of the original plaintiff. It is seen that since Late D.Nanjundappa did not register the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff, the original plaintiff alleges to have got issued legal notice for performance of contract, which was denied by defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is also seen from the evidence adduced by the parties that defendant No.1 has denied receiving any part consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- from the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 plaintiffs. On the contrary, the defence taken by the defendants is that the original plaintiff has fabricated and concocted the document only with the purpose of cheating and knocking of the property of defendant Nos.1 to 3. 9. It is a fact that defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 by way of the registered sale deeds. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also signed the said document as consenting witnesses. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have also filed their statements by contending that they are the absolute owners and bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration; they are in possession and enjoyment of the same; they have planted nilgiris trees in the suit schedule property; they have filed a complaint before Doddaballapura Rural Police Station against the plaintiffs for forging and concocting documents, for which, a chargesheet has been filed against the plaintiffs. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 10. The trial Court has dealt with the matter and while considering the evidence of all the parties, has answered most of the issues against the original plaintiff. On the basis of several admissions made by the original plaintiff and the cross-examination adduced, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement of sale dated 05.05.1993 and that he was unable to place any cogent material before the Court to substantiate the agreement of sale having been executed by Late D.Nanjundappa, so also, the trial Court did not agree with the original plaintiff that he had paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- to Late D.Nanjundappa and balance consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- to defendant No.1. Since no material was placed to believe or substantiate the said claim, the trial Court dismissed the suit not believing the version of the original plaintiff. The same was re-appreciated and re- analysed and having not found any favour with the plaintiffs, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit. 11. Learned counsel for appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. Gangadhar reported in (2015)1 SCC 391, wherein the principle and the position of the law with regard to Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC is not disputed. The same is correct position of law and also it is not countered or objected to by learned counsel for defendants. Relying upon the said decision, he contends that the first Appellate Court has not formulated many points for consideration, rather it has formulated only one point for consideration. In my opinion, by formulating one point for consideration, if the first Appellate Court had not dealt with several issues that was argued by the appellants and not re-appreciated the entire material evidence and the issues so canvassed by the parties, then in such circumstances, the appellants would be right in - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 contending so and relying upon the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. Upon carefully going through the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, I am of the opinion that though the first Appellate Court has formulated one point for consideration, it has dealt with all the issues that are required to be dealt with in the present case on hand i.e. the specific performance of contract filed by the appellants. Necessary issues have been addressed by the first Appellate Court. The points for consideration raised by the appellants has been re- heard and re-analysed once again as required under Section 96 of CPC for deciding the first appeal, which is continuation of the original suit proceedings. As contemplated under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, the first Appellate Court has re-heard and re-analysed the entire material, both oral and documentary and the arguments put-forth by learned counsels for parties and has passed an order in detail, which in my opinion, cannot be - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 considered as cryptic or unsatisfactory or perverse or arbitrary. 13. Under the circumstances, having heard learned counsels for parties and all questions involved, I do not find any good ground or cogent reasons to interfere with the judgments and decree rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, so also, to frame any substantial question of law much less what is urged in the appeal for consideration and deciding this appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to frame any substantial question of law in this matter as nothing arises for consideration as both the Courts have dealt with all the questions of fact and law and no case is made out by the appellants before this Court to frame any substantial question of law for consideration. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at stage of admission itself; - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37604 RSA No. 1710 of 2011 ii) The impugned dated 21.04.2011 passed in R.A.No.133/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.467/1997 by the Additional II Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby affirmed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14