- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1336 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SUBBEGOWDA S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA AGED 68 YEARS 2. H S RAMESH S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED 48 YEARS 3. H S KUMAR S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HARAVU VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJA L, ADVOCATE) AND: K. HARIDEV S/O KEMANNA GOWDA AGED 63 YEARS NO. 1653, 6TH MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 2ND STAGE, HEBBAL MYSURU CITY - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMAPRASAD S.N, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.06.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.5025/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA)., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.39/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. 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 L. Raja, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.N. Ramaprasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants' second appeal assailing the correctness of the Judgment in O.S. No.39/2019 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific enforcement of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 agreement to sell dated 29.09.2015, in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' for short), confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.5025/2021: SCHEDULE A land bearing Sy.No.28/2a3, measuring 0.23 guntas Arlukuppe Village, Chinakurali Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District bounded on : East by : Road West by : Land of Jayanna North by : Land of Jayanna South by : Janatha colony 3. Facts of the case in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 A suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 29.09.2015 came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that defendants are the owners of the suit property and for their legal necessities, they agreed to sell the suit property in a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- and on the day of Agreement, they have received Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash and balance amount Rs.5,00,000/- through Cheque - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 bearing No.584273 drawn on Canara Bank and further balance amount Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration. 3.2 Despite the repeated demands, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in their favour and ultimately legal notice came to be issued vide Ex.P2 to the defendants. Legal notice is duly served, but defendants failed to reply nor comply the callings of notice resulting in filing of the suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 29.09.2015. 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. 5. Thereafter learned Trial Judge raised the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. 6. In the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined as PW 1 and placed on record 7 documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P7 comprising of suit agreement, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt, Form No. 15 and RTC extract. 7. As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, one of the defendants, Ramesha got examined as DW-1 who is the defendant No. 2 and placed on record 5 documents which are legal notice, copy of the substance of accusation, copy of the sworn statement, copies of complaint and annexures, which are the subject matter of private complainant as Exs.D1 to D5. 8. Learned Judge in the Trial Court thereafter, heard the arguments of the parties and noting the admission made by DW-1 in the witness box that DW-1 along with his brother and father, executed the sale agreement in their favour and sale consideration was agreed to be received as sum of Rs.6,10,000/- and thereafter they had been to Sub-Registrar Office for registration of the Ex.P1, decreed the suit of the plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 disbelieving the defence of the suit agreement is a loan agreement. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.ANo.5025/2021. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the defendants. 11. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendants are before this Court in the second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: The Courts below have failed to consider that, the alleged agreement of sale dated 29/09/2015 said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs is only for the purpose of securing the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as a security for the payment of the said loan and the plaintiff had also received the four post dated cheques belongs to the defendant No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 The Courts below have failed to consider that, the plaintiff having lend money of Rs.5,00,000/- has presented one cheque in his name and the said cheque was dishonoured and hence, C.C.No.1078/2020 has been filed against the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 has been acquitted in the said criminal case by an order dated 12/10/2022 on the file of V JMFC, Mysore, and Crl.Appeal No.100/2023 is pending before this Hon'ble Court filed by the plaintiff. The Courts below have failed to consider that, the plaintiff had also presented another cheque belongs to the defendant No.2 in the name of his wife and the said cheque was also dishonoured, the PCR No.881/2018 has been presented against the defendant No.2 and the said criminal case is also pending consideration on the file of IV Addl. JMFC, Mysore. The Courts below have failed to consider that, merely because Ex.P1 is the registered agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the defendants, doesn't immune the plaintiff to proving the contents of the documents, passing of consideration. Merely because the defendants have admitted the execution of the agreement of sale dated 29/09/2015, that doesn't mean that, the contents of the document also proved and hence, the approach of the Courts below is erroneous. The Courts below have failed to consider that, the agreement of sale dated 29/09/2015 fixing the date for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 performance for a period of one year is itself shows that, it is a money transaction and not intention agreement of sale and there whatsoever to the parties have been acted upon. was no The Courts below have failed to consider that, the defendants have pleaded the hardship with regard to the fraud played by the plaintiff in obtaining the agreement of sale and this is the only property belongs to the defendants, the courts below have not exercised the jurisdiction invoking the provisions of Sec.20 of the Specific Relief Act. The Courts below have failed to consider that, the stray admission of DW-1 with regard to execution of Ex.P1 has to be read with defence taken in the written statement and the affidavit evidence filed before the courts below. However, the Courts below have proceeded on the basis, the DW-1 has admitted the execution of the agreement. The Courts below have failed to consider that, the ready and willingness of the plaintiff has not been proved, there is no averment in the plaint with regard to ready and willingness and it is humanly impossible to believe that a person having paid the entire sale consideration, kept quiet for a period of three years to secure the registered sale deed in his favour. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and hence, the conclusion - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 arrived by the Courts below is erroneous and resulted in miscarriage of justice. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: 1 Whether the Courts below have considered the mandate U/S 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in the light of the evidence on record ? 2 Whether the Courts below were justified in holding the Ex.P1 the alleged agreement of sale dated 29/09/2015 has been registered is enough to prove the contents though the same was denied by the defendants? 3 Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, though there is no averments in the pleading with regard to ready and willingness of the plaintiff as per Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act ? 4 Whether the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the Courts below is resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, the finding recorded by the Courts below are perverse not based on any legal and justifiable reason ? 12. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. L. Raja reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 vehemently contended that both the Courts have misdirected themselves in not properly appreciating the defense of the appellants resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal. 13. He would further contend that mere admission in the witness box with regard to the execution of the sale agreement itself was not sufficient to decree the suit of the plaintiff inasmuch as the value of the suit property, readiness and willingness and other parameters which are required for the purpose of ordering for specific enforcement of the agreement is not properly considered by both the Courts and sought for admitting the appeal. 14. Per contra, Sri. S.N. Ramaprasad, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 15. He would further contend that both the Courts have rightly appreciated the case of the parties and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 disbelieved the defense of the appellants that the suit agreement is a loan agreement, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs which requires no interference in this appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 17. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit agreement marked at Ex.P1 is a registered sale agreement. 18. Admittedly defendants are the owners of the property. Crowning all these aspects of the matter, in the cross-examination of defendant No.2 who is examined as DW1, he admits that himself, his father who is defendant No.1 and his brother who is defendant No.3 have together executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. 19. He also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the sale consideration was fixed at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 Rs.6,10,000/- and thereafter having agreed the same, they went to the Sub-Registrar Office and got registered the sale agreement. 20. In the teeth of such admissions, taking a contra plea before the Trial Court only to save the property and having denied to execute the sale deed and contending that the suit transaction is a loan transaction is thus rightly rejected by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 21. Thus, this court having regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not find any good reasons to admit the appeal for further consideration on aforesaid substantial questions of law for want of merit in the grounds are in the appeal memorandum. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38514 RSA No. 1336 of 2024 22. In view of the foregoing discussion following the order : ORDER The appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64