- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2020 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT RAMARATHNAMMA W/O K CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI A V RAMAKRISHNAPPA SON OF VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.47/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.453/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE C/c I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Appeal came to be admitted on following substantial questions of law: "[a] Whether the lower appellate court was justified in setting aside the well considered judgment of the trial court only because another view was possible on the same set of facts and circumstances ? [b] Whether the lower appellate court was not right in believing the contents of the registered agreement of sale [Ex.P-1] as opposed to the oral claims of the respondent without taking note of the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act ? [c] Whether the courts below filed to take into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and instead relying on bits and pieces of evidence drawn out of context and giving its own interpretations ? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 [d] Whether the lower appellate court was right in calling for documents suo moto from the office of the Sub Registrar regarding the valuation of the property when neither of the parties made an application to the said effect and further relying on the same and giving credence without getting the same marked or hearing the parties separately on the said document ? [e] Whether the lower appellate court was justified in rendering a finding that the appellant has not produced any documents to show her readiness to pay the balance sale consideration when such a defence was not raised in the written statement and no issue was framed to the said effect ? [f] Whether the Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate court is in accordance with law and whether the same requires interference of this honourable court 3. Suit of the plaintiff seeking specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2007 in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property) has been decreed by the Trial Court: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 SCHEEDULE Land bearing Sy.No.1/P-2 measuring 1-13 acres situated at M. Sonnenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, bounded on the East by : Narayanappa Land, West by : Motappa Land, North by : Land in the same number belonging to Jayamma and South by : Land in the same number belonging to Govindappa. 4. Defendant, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal in R.A.No.47/2018. 5. One of the contentions taken by the defendants in the Court below was the Suit agreement is a loan agreement and plaintiff has created the loan agreement as agreement to sell. 6. All that the First Appellate Court was required to consider is whether the suit agreement is an agreement to sell or loan agreement. Instead, the First Appellate Court ventured to hold an enquiry with regard to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 inadequacy of the sale consideration. When the agreement is denied by the defendant with categorical defence that the suit agreement is not an agreement to sell but is a loan agreement, the enquiry with regard to inadequacy of the sale consideration could not have been considered at all by the First Appellate Court. 7. Further, Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the First Appellate Court has gone to the extent of writing a letter to the Sub- Registrar to find out the value of the property which is outside the scope of the powers of the First Appellate Court inasmuch as when the defendant himself did not place such valuation report in respect of the suit property before the First Appellate Court. 8. Such an approach of the First Appellate Court needs to be interfered inasmuch as when there is a denial of the agreement, there could not have been enquiry as to the inadequacy of the sale consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 9. Further, insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, agreement could not have been held as void on the ground of the undervaluation. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court misunderstood the scope of the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the suit for specific performance came to be decreed. 11. At the most, if the First Appellate Court was of the opinion that there is inadequacy of sale consideration, First Appellate Court could have resorted to the legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmalanand vs. Advent Corporation Private Limited and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2290 and disposed of the appeal in accordance with law. 12. Having not taken recourse to such an exercise and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff holding that the agreement is void ab initio on account of undervaluation cannot be sustained at all. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 13. At this stage, Sri. Ramesh Kulkari would contend that in the event this Court answering the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant, matter be remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Sri. C. Shankar Reddy has no objection for the same. 14. Accordingly, the following Order: ORDER (i) While answering the substantial questions of law, in favour of the appellant, the appeal is remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity for the parties. (ii) Taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and the appeal is of the year 2018, parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court without further notice on 25.09.2025 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34599 RSA No. 1045 of 2020 thereafter First Appellate Court shall dispose of the same as early as possible. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE snc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT-SG