- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHESHWARAPPA, S/O BASAVANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O YEKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI., ADV FOR SRI. S. V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H. K. RUDRAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI. MAHESHWARAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 3. SRI. DODDA ERAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 4. SRI. SANNA ERAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 5. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 6. SRI. GADIGESHAPPA, S/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND R/O SALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.54/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.239/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are served with appeal twice and remain unrepresented. 2. Appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit in O.S.No.239/2010 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.02.1987 in respect of following property, which is came to be dismissed: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 "SCHEDULE Agricultural land in Sy.No.27, totally measuring 14 acres and 0-12 guntas out of which an extent of 3 acres towards western side, situated at Chikkahalivana Village, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District, bounded by East: Remaining land in the same Sy.No.27 West: Land of Lambani Hanuma Naik. North: Land of Chikkahalivanada Veerabhadrappa South: Road leading to Chikkahalivana to Channagiri." 3. Validity of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff was questioned before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff in R.A.No.54/2016. 4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the legal and factual aspects, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 "GROUNDS The impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is totally illegal, arbitrary and perverse regard being had to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is totally contrary to law, facts and legal evidence on record. The learned judge of the first appellate court failed to apply law to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case and thereby passed an erroneous judgment and decree. The learned judge of the first appellate court has failed to comprehend the facts as pleaded by the parties and the law on the point which has caused total miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Both the courts have not framed proper points for consideration and those framed did not cover the case of the parties. Both the courts have not drawn proper inferences and those drawn are illegal and erroneous. Both the courts have failed to raise proper presumptions and those raised are illegal and probabilities have not been given due weightage. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 Both the courts have not considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in proper perspective which resulted in passing an erroneous judgment. Both the courts have not appreciated that the defendants have not replied the notice got issued by the plaintiff before institution of the suit despite service of the said notice. They have chosen to remain absent notwithstanding the service of suit summons. They have not controverted the plant averments. They have not impeached the testimony of the PW1 and PW2. They have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, both the courts have acted illegally in dismissing the suit. Both the courts have erred in law in holding that the plaintiff did not establish the execution of the suit agreement. There is no denial of execution of the suit agreement by the defendants in order to call upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit agreement. The PW2 is admittedly one of the attesters to the suit agreement. The testimony of the PW1 and PW2 has not been impeached. Therefore the said finding recorded by the trial court confirmed by the first appellate court is highly arbitrary and contrary to law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 Both the courts have not considered the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the ready and willingness. It has been held time and again that when the purchaser under agreement for sale paid the substantial portion of the sale consideration question of holding that the purchaser has not shown or established ready and willingness does not arise. Admittedly, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- leaving the balance of Rs.4,000/- payable to the defendants. From the above it is pellucid that the plaintiff has paid substantial portion of the sale consideration and therefore the finding recorded by the trial court confirmed by the first appellate court that the plaintiff has not established the ready and willingness is arbitrary and illegal. Both the courts have not noticed that the suit agreement is of the year 1987. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2010. The plaintiff has explained why he could not approach the court earlier. As could be seen from documents made available on record there was litigation among the defendants and others in regard to the regrant of the suit schedule property and said litigation comes to an end only in the year 2009 and thereafter the plaintiff got issued the legal notice. The defendants did not respond the legal notice which necessitated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 the plaintiff to approach the trial court seeking decree of specific performance of the suit agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is laches or delay on the part of the plaintiff in pursuing his rights conferred on him under the suit agreement. In view of the above the dismissal of the suit by the trial court confirming the said judgement by the first appellate court cannot be countenanced. Both the courts committed an error in not appreciating that in a suit for decree of specific performance, court is not obliged to decide the title of the purchaser. Both the courts have recorded finding that the plaintiff has not established the title of the defendants viz., Eerappa and Karibasappa. Both courts have not appreciated that the plaintiff has adduced the Ex.P12 to P23 which are the extracts of the RTCs in respect of the land comprised in Sy.No.27. The said document would prima facie show that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property i.e., land in Sy.No.27. Therefore, the aforesaid finding written by the trial court confirmed by the first appellate court is contrary to the facts of the case and the ocular evidence available on record. Both the courts have erred in law in not noticing that the plaintiff has produced the documents to show the order of regrant which shows that the suit - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 schedule property regranted in favour of the defendants. It is unfortunate that both the courts discarded those documents and held that the plaintiff has not established the title of the defendants over the suit schedule property. Both the courts have not noticed that the documents produced by the plaintiff in his evidence showed that the defendants are the persons representing the estate left by the persons who executed the suit agreement. Therefore, it is totally illegal and arbitrary on the part of the both the courts to hold that the plaintiff is not established his case. Both the courts have erred in law in returning the finding that the plaintiff has not established his possession over the suit schedule property. The suit agreement contains the recital to the effect that the father of the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property in part performance of the agreement of sale. There are no contra materials placed on record to show that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit. Both the courts have not considered the averments in the plaint as well as the oral evidence of PW1 and also the recital in the suit agreement. When the suit agreement was executed, the suit schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 property was not regranted in favour of the persons who executed the suit agreement. As per the recitals in the suit agreement, the sellers have undertaken to execute the regular registered sale deed after land is regranted to them. It has come on record the regrant proceedings come to an end in the 2009. Immediately after the regrant proceedings come to an end, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, the finding recorded by the both the courts on this aspect is contrary to the pleadings and the evidence on record. Both the courts have committed an error in law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. No doubt the suit agreement is of the year 1987. The suit was filed in the year 2010. However, as per the recitals in the suit agreement and as per the terms set out therein, the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit arose only on 30/06/2009 when regrant proceedings come to an end and also on 27/09/2010 when the llegal notice was issued to the defendants and when they have failed to execute the sale deed as demanded in the legal notice. In this view of the matter, both the courts are wrong in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 Viewed the matter from any angle and regard being had to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to law and also the admitted facts and circumstances of the case. The substantial questions of law that arises between the parties to this second appeal:- i) Whether both the courts are right in law in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the suit agreement and his ready and willingness to perform his part of the obligation notwithstanding the fact that the defendants failed to reply the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff prior to institution of the suit and have failed to controvert the plaint averments and have not cross examined the witness examined on the side of the plaintiff and have not adduced evidence and thereby there was no opposition to the claim of the plaintiff? ii) Whether both the courts are right in law in holding that the plaintiff has not established his ready and willingness to perform his part of the obligation notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has failed substantial portion of the sale consideration under the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 agreement and the defendants never disputed the execution of the suit agreement nor have they taken defence that on account of failure of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration the plaintiff was not entitled for decree of specific performance relating to the suit agreement? iii) Whether both the courts have gone wrong in law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2010 was barred by time notwithstanding the fact that as per recitals in the suit agreement, the plaintiff is entitle to seek for execution of the registered sale deed only after the suit schedule property is regranted to the defendants and that the regrant proceedings come to an end only on 31/01/2009? iv) Whether both the courts have committed an error in law in holding that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the suit agreement when the defendants have not disputed the execution of the suit agreement and they have not replied the legal notice and have not filed the written statement and they have not cross examined the PW1 and PW2 and also they have failed to adduce their evidence opposing the claim of the plaintiff? - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 v) Whether both the courts have committed an error in law in holding that the plaintiff has not established the title of the persons who executed the suit agreement over the suit schedule property when in law, the courts are not obliged to decide the title of the seller of an agreement for sale in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale? vi) Whether both the courts have committed wrong in holding that the plaintiff has not established his possession over the suit schedule property notwithstanding the fact that the suit agreement contains recitals that the executants of the suit agreement have put the father of the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of suit agreement on there are no contra materials made available on record to disprove the same? vii) Whether both the courts are justified in law in holding that the plaintiff has not established that the suit schedule property was regranted to the defendants despite the production of the several documents in order to show that the defendants who are the legal representatives of the executants of the suit agreement have been regranted with the lands in Sy.No.26 and Sy.No.27? - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 viii) Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case and regard being had to the principles governing the grant of decree of specific performance the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable in law?" 6. Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in this appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. 7. He would further contend that in the event that the Court is of the opinion that the specific enforcement of the agreement is impermissible, may consider ordering for return of advance sale consideration reasonable interest. 8. He also contended that the suit agreement being registered agreement, Trial Court disbelieving the agreement is incorrect and sought for admitting the appeal - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 on behalf of the said grounds. Respondents are unrepresented. 9. Thus, in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the RTC extract wherein the vendors are sought to be in possession of the suit property clearly depicted that the land in question was 'Talwar Umbali'. As such, even though the suit agreement is a registered argeement, it is ab initio void. 11. No doubt, after the Inam Abolition Act came into force, necessary application was filed and the matter was also taken up to this court in W.P.No.36185/2004. 12. Nevertheless, since the land in question was a 'Talawar Umbali Land', as in found in Exs.P14 to P.22. In column No. 11, there was a clear condition that till 15 years land cannot be alienated at all. Suit agreement - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33037 RSA No. 221 of 2024 which is entered in violation of the conditions of re-grant, is thus ab initio void which cannot be enforced in the Court of law. 13. In such circumstances, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and needs no interference in this appeal by admitting the appeal for further consideration. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER The appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56