- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2015 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI R NANDEESH S/O LATE RAJANNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. SRI R NAVEEN S/O RAJANNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: NO.64, HORAMAVU AGARA, HORAMAVU POST, K R PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 043 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SOMANATHA H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S N SREERAMA REDDY S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT: NO.1ST DIVISION, ANJANI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI S V VISHWANATHA REDDY S/O S N SREEMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT 1ST DIVISION, ANJANI EXTENSION, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 CHINTAMANI - 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. VISWANATHA SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2014 PASSED IN RA NO.55/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT - II, CHINTHAMANI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.133/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTHAMANI. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 in R.A.No.55/2013 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, Chintamani (hereinafter termed as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013 in O.S.No.133/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani (hereinafter - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 termed as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the plaint that, the plaintiff No.1 was in need of money for his business purpose and as such, approached the defendants to lend the money. It is also stated in the plaint that, plaintiff No.1 requested the defendants to lend money of Rs.4,00,000/- for interest and accordingly, the defendants agreed to lend the money and also made a claim for 2% interest per month on the principal amount. 4. It is further stated in the plaint that, as the plaintiff No.1 was in need of money, he agreed to pay the interest as claimed by the defendants. But, the defendants made a claim for execution of the registered nominal Sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 Deed as security in respect of the money as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is also stated in the plaint that, plaintiff No.1 and his son had executed a registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 in respect of the subject matter of the suit in favour of the defendants by taking two cheques issued by defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the defendants promised at the time of drafting of nominal Sale Deed that the amount could be encashed on the very next day. Hence, plaintiff No.1 has presented the cheques for encashment on 05.06.2006 and 09.06.2006 and the cheques came to be dishonoured for want of funds. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiffs that, the defendants got registered the Sale Deed fraudulently and therefore, as the price of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.10,00,000/-, the execution of Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property, made for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is a meager sale consideration and also that the plaintiffs have no intention to sell the suit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 schedule property and therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint that, the registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 cannot be considered as a registered Sale Deed in the eye of law and therefore it is contended that, the said document is void. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.133/2006 seeking relief of cancellation of registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 which is said to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. 6. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. 7. It is the specific contention of the defendants that, the plaintiffs intend to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants and further it is stated that, the plaintiffs have requested the defendants for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of selling the suit schedule property and accordingly, the market value of the suit land as on 22.03.2006 as per the guidance value was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 Rs.4,00,000/-. It is also stated in the written statement that, the Sale Deed was executed by the parties in the presence of agents and witnesses and the sale transaction was completed as the defendants have paid the entire sale consideration amount to the plaintiffs and therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that, the averments made by the plaintiffs that the aforementioned Sale Deed is nominal Sale Deed cannot be accepted. 8. It is also stated in the written statement that, the plaintiffs are not illiterate and they are businessmen and possess acumen to understand the recitals in the Sale Deed and further they delivered the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of the defendants and therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to P13. The defendants have examined three witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked seven documents as Exs.D1 to D7. 10. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.55/2013 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal is resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 allowed the appeal with cost and as such, set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.133/2006. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 11. This Court vide order dated 31.05.2022 has formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 " 1. Whether first appellate court erred in reversing judgment & decree passed by trial Court without giving independent findings on all disputed issues involved in case? 2. Whether first appellate Court was justified in repudiating registered sale deed merely on ground that cheques issued towards sale consideration had bounced ignoring legal position that only remedy available was to sue for price or balance of price unpaid?" 12. Heard Smt. S. Susheela, learned senior counsel for Sri. Somanatha H. appearing for the appellants and Sri. V. Viswanatha Setty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 13. Smt. S. Susheela, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P2 - registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 and refers to the recitals in page No.2 of the registered Sale Deed and submitted that, the plaintiffs had received two cheques as well as cash for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 and the same has been acknowledged in the registered Sale Deed and therefore, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, the Sale Deed has been executed with payment of entire sale consideration amount, hence, the said Sale Deed cannot be considered as a nominal Sale Deed and therefore submitted that, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with by this Court. 14. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants by referring to paragraph No.2 of the plaint and submitted that, the averments made in the plaint makes it clear that, the plaintiffs had made admission with regard to receiving Rs.4,00,000/- as cash from the defendants and therefore, the said admission has been considered by the Trial Court and same was erroneously interfered with by the First Appellate Court and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 15. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to the cross-examination of D.W.1 at paragraph No.1, the plaintiffs themselves have elicitated from the defendants with regard to payment of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash in the presence of Sri. Jayashankar, Sri. Prakash as well as the plaintiffs and also two cheques have been given to the plaintiffs. 16. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that, P.W.1 admits in the examination-in-chief itself with regard to need of money and further admits in the cross-examination that the Sale Deed was drafted by one Sri. D. Manjunath in the presence of the plaintiffs, defendants as well as the witnesses and therefore, due execution of the registered Sale Deed has been made on 22.03.2006 and therefore, the said Sale Deed cannot be cancelled by considering that the Sale Deed is a nominal Sale Deed said to have been executed by the plaintiffs is contrary to the factual aspects - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 on record and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has also drawn the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of P.W.1 dated 27.09.2010 wherein, the P.W.1 admits with regard to the signature on Ex.P2 and also he lawfully admits that Sri. Munishamireddy - P.W.2 has also signed the said document. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants while referring to the cross-examination of P.W.1 on 27.09.2010 that, the dispute with regard to the payment of sale consideration was during the month of April and May, 2006 however, the execution of the registered Sale Deed was made during the month of March and therefore, contradicts the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. It is also argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants by referring to the cross-examination of P.W.1 on 27.09.2010 wherein, the P.W.1 admits with regard to presenting two cheques to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 Bank for encashment and therefore, as the P.W.1 himself has admitted about the signature on the cheques said to have been given by the defendants referred to above and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 18. In order to better her arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BISHUNDEO NARAIN RAI (DEAD) BY L.Rs. AND OTHERS VS. ANMOL DEVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1998 SC 3006 and argued that, the intention of the parties has to be gathered from the recitals in the document and the said aspect has been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, however, the same has not been re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court as per Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 19. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by referring to the provision - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and submitted that, the defendants have paid the entire sale consideration amount and therefore, the said Sale Deed has to be considered as an absolute Sale Deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and in this regard, refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIDHYADHAR VS. MANIKRAO AND ANOTHER reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 and in the case of DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and argued that, in the event if the payment of consideration in the Sale Deed has not been received by the plaintiffs, it was open for the plaintiffs to file a suit for recovery of money and therefore, the suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed itself is not maintainable and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 20. Per contra, Sri. V. Viswanatha Setty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 attended circumstance with regard to the execution of the Registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 has to be considered by this Court while answering the substantial question of law. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the averments made in the plaint, particularly referring to paragraph Nos.4 and 5 that, the plaintiffs never intended to sell the joint family property in favour of these defendants and Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 was made as a security insofar as the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- being received by the plaintiffs. Therefore, by referring to the recitals in the registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006, Sri. V. Viswanatha Setty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record has rightly concluded that the registered Sale Deed is only a nominal Sale Deed and accordingly, cancelled the Sale Deed and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 21. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the Registered Sale Deed 22.03.2006 that, the cheques referred to in the registered Sale Deed do not contain the date on which it was executed and therefore, there is no actual transfer of sale consideration amount pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed and therefore, the said Sale Deed cannot be considered as a Sale Deed in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and as such, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of MADAPPA VS. SONAVVA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4295 and argued that, the Sale Deed has been executed by the plaintiffs for collateral security in lieu of receiving a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendants and therefore, the facts of the present case are fairly covered by this Court in the aforementioned case and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 22. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, the defendants have - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 committed a fraud by inducing the plaintiffs to execute the registered Sale Deed despite the sale consideration amount mentioned in the Sale Deed that cannot be equated to the market value of the property in question and that apart, the plaintiffs did not have the intention to sell the suit schedule property and in this regard, he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A.P. VS. M/S. MOTORS AND GENERAL STORES (P) LTD. reported in AIR 1968 SC 200 and argued that, the fraud vitiates solemn action on the part of the defendants and therefore, sought to defend the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 23. In the light of submission made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the contentions raised by the parties and perused the original records. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 24. It is not in dispute that the parties are known to each other and executed the registered Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 - Ex.P2, the recitals at page No.2 makes it clear that, the total sale consideration amount is Rs.4,00,000/-. The recitals also state about two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each as shown in the registered Sale Deed. 25. Below mentioned is the recitals from the Sale Deed: "*ಈ ೕಾ ೕಲ ಂಡಂೆ ಾಲು ಲ ರೂಾಗೆ ೕವ ೆನು ದು , ಸದ ೆಗಳನು ಾನು ಈ ಪತ%ದ ರುಜು 'ಾರುವ (ಾ)ಗಳ ಸಮಮ ನಗ+ಾ, -.ಂ+ಾ ಸಂ+ಾಯ 'ಾ0ೊಂರುೆ1ೕ ೆ2ಾ, ಅಂತೂ ಕ%ಯದ ಪ56ಾ ಹಣ -.ಂದ ನನೆ ಈ ೕಾ ಸಂ+ಾಯ9ಾ,ರುತ1+ೆ." (Emphasis Supplied) The perusal of the aforementioned recital would make it clear that, the defendants have not only given two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the plaintiffs but also stated that, Rs.4,00,000/- has been received by the plaintiffs through cash. It is also to be noted that, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 since it is a registered Sale Deed and same has been executed by the parties, the contention raised by the respondents that the said Sale Deed is a nominal Sale Deed cannot be accepted. 26. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents refers to the evidence of D.W.1 stating that, the plaintiffs were in need of money for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for their business purpose and accordingly, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and as such, the defendants have paid two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each and the same was presented for encashment which came to be dishonoured and in this regard, on looking into Exs.P9 and P11 where, dates have been mentioned as 05.06.2006 and 09.06.2006 respectively and same were made in favour of Vishwanatha Transport S.N.Srirama Reddy. 27. In the backdrop of these aspects, though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents refers to - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 the circumstance in which the transaction has been made by the parties, however, the parties are bound by terms and intention as mentioned in the registered Sale Deed is clear that the plaintiffs are willing to sell the suit property in favour of the defendants. In this regard, the cross- examination of P.W.1 itself would makes it clear that, he is having income of Rs.1,00,000/- in the evidence. In this regard, the cross-examination of P.W.1 reads as under: "3) ಗು:1ೆ+ಾರ 0ೆಲಸ;ಂದ ನನೆ ವಷ=0ೆ ಸು'ಾರಉ 10 ಮದ 15 ಲ ರೂ ವವ?ಾರ ಇತು1. 1995-96ಂದ ಗು:1ೆ 0ೆಲಸ;ಮದ ನನೆ ಸು'ಾರು 10-15 ಲ ರೂ ವವ?ಾರ ಇತು1. 6 ವಷ=ಗಳ Aಂ+ೆ ವಷ=0ೆ ಸು'ಾರು 20 ಂದ 25 ಲ ರೂ ವವ?ಾರ ಇತು1. ನನೆ ವಷ=0ೆ 1 ಅಥ9ಾ 2 ಲ ರೂ ವರ'ಾನ ಇತು1. ಾನು ಆD=ಕ9ಾ, ಸಧೃಡ ಬHಾಡ ಾ,+ೆ ನು ಎಂದ6ೆ ಜ. ಾನು ಆ+ಾಯ ೆೆಯನು ಕಟುK:1+ೆ ನು. ಾನು ಕ%ಯ 'ಾದ ಜ-ೕನುಗಳನು ಆ+ಾಯ ೆೆಯ ಟ=LM ನNO ೋPಲO. ನನ 0ಾQಟR ಅ0ೌಂTನNO ಸು'ಾರು 50 (ಾUರ ರೂ ಹಣUತು1. 28. It is also admitted by the P.W.1 that, he himself has presented the cheques to the Bank for encashment on the very same day and he admits his signature in the registered Sale Deed as well as on the cheques referred to - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 above in the presence of witnesses, that too, the P.W.2 was also signatory to the registered Sale Deed and the evidence of P.W.2 makes it clear that, transaction has been made to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and in that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. It is also forthcoming from the evidence of P.W.1 dated 27.09.2010 that, he is earning to the extent of Rs.10 to 15 lakhs from his business, insofar the lease of property is concerned and also, he had a business for a sum of Rs.20 to 25 lakhs for about six lakhs earlier to the execution of registered Sale Deed. It is clear that the plaintiffs were not in need of money as aforementioned. The true intention of the plaintiffs was to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and therefore, the contention raised by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. 29. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the judgment of this Court in the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 case of MADAPPA (supra) however, in the said case, the intention was made clear in the Sale Deed itself stating about the Sale Deed that has been executed for collateral security. However, in the present case, the Sale Deed dated 22.03.2006 does not contain the similar recitals and therefore the said judgment referred to above by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents cannot be made acceptable to interfere with the reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 30. That apart, in order to understand whether the actual sale consideration has been transferred from the purchaser to the vendor is concerned, it has to be looked into from the real test of sale based upon the intention of the parties. For the foregoing reasons, the intention of P.W.1 is clear from the cross-examination that, P.W.1 intended to sell the suit schedule property and that apart, it is also to be noted that, in the event, there is no actual transfer of sale consideration in terms of the registered Sale Deed, it was always open for the plaintiffs to file a - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 suit for recovery of money and therefore, I find force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants that, a suit for cancellation is not maintainable before the Trial Court is concerned. The said aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DAHIBEN (supra) in paragraph Nos.29.7 to 29.9 reads as under: "29.7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides as under: 54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.” The definition of “sale” indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of the interest or right in the property, or else it would not be a sale. The definition further indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a “price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised”. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 29.8. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573] this Court held that the words “price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised” indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non- payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a “sale”, the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record. 29.9. In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. We find that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a)." In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, the intention of P.W.1 is to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendants, which is forthcoming from the recitals in Ex.P2 as well as the admission made in the cross-examination by P.W.1, I am of the view that, the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the material on record in a manner known to law as per Order XLI Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure and further, the re-appreciated evidence found by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 and as such, the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33030 RSA No. 79 of 2015 substantial question of law referred to above favours the defendants. 31. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) This Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 in R.A.No.55/2013 on the file of Fast Track Court - II, Chintamani is hereby set aside. iii) The judgment and decree dated 21.02.2013 in O.S.No.133/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani is hereby confirmed. iv) The suit of the plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41