- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.407 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T. BALUNAYAKA S/O THOLASI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.181/1-A 6TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK THYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SRI. P. DEVANNA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT. CHINTHAMANI W/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT GEJJALANATHA (RAMAPURA) HANUURU TALUK 1(b) SMT. USHARANI D/O LATE P. DEVANNA W/O SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.59 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 3RD CROSS STREET THIRUMURUGAN NAGAR VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE DISTRICT-641 041 TAMIL NADU STATE. 2. SRI. SACCHIDANANDA S/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SRI PANCHAKSHARI S/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF RAMAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANGAR DISTRICT-571313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. P.C.SUNITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND ALSO FOR R1(a) & R1(b) AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5005/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA, (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGALA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The Trial Court, when the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, wherein the contention of the plaintiff that out of total sale consideration of Rs.5,95,700/- on the date of agreement 26.06.2008 paid the earnest money of Rs.4,50,000/-. The defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, O.S.No.7/2011 was filed before the Trial Court. Apart from that it is the contention that an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid, but not placed any document for having paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Trial Court considering the material on record, particularly considering the recitals of the sale agreement, where there is a provision in case of default in execution of document, double the amount could be paid and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 accordingly, ordered to pay the double the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and also directed to hand over the possession of the properties which is in his possession in Sy.No.811 and Sy.No.819/2. If the defendant fails to pay the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- within the time stipulated, the plaintiff can recover the said decreettal amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization of the decreettal amount. The Trial Court also directed to refund the amount within 3 months. But, instead of either depositing or payment of amount as directed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.5005/2016. The Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo as well as in the cross appeal and also considering both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the cross appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC and also dismissed the appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that subsequent to the purchase of the property, made improvement in the suit schedule property. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not granting the relief of specific performance. When both the Courts while appreciating the material on record with regard to the readiness and willingness of contract and consistency of the specific relief Act, ought not to have rejected the prayer of specific performance. 4. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the Trial Court taken note of the recital in the document of sale agreement, wherein also there is a specific recital of provision for refund of double the amount and double the amount was also ordered to pay. Admittedly only an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid and though contend - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 that additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid, but not produced any document to prove the same and hence, not accepted the case of the plaintiff. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the cross appeal was dismissed, immediately deposited the amount before the Trial Court to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- and hence, there cannot be any order of specific performance. 5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the sale agreement dated 26.06.2008, it is not in dispute that appellant is in possession of the property. The counsel would vehemently contend that improvement was made, but the Trial Court considering the recital of the sale agreement, wherein a provision is made in case if defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement as there is clause to pay double the amount, not at the rate of 6% p.a., as directed by the Trial Court. The counsel appearing for the respondent took time stating that going to verify and instruct before going to get the instructions - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 and counsel submitted that immediately after the disposal of the appeal, when the cross appeal was filed, deposited the amount before the Court. Having considered the material on record also, according to the plaintiff, the land in which agreed to purchase for an amount of Rs.5,95,700/- and the subject matter of the issue between the parties is with regard to the 6.44 acres of land and having taken note of the said fact into consideration also, when the Trial Court granted the relief to pay the double the amount as per the recitals of the sale agreement. When such being the case and also both of them have challenged the order of the Trial Court and both of them are unsuccessful. In the second appeal, it is appropriate to direct the defendants/respondents to pay the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court with an interest of 12% p.a., from the date of judgment and decree dated 23.03.2016 as ordered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.7/2011 and not a case for granting the relief of specific performance as contended by the counsel - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52420 RSA No. 407 of 2024 appearing for the appellant. Both the Court also taken note of the recital in the sale agreement itself for making of payment of double the amount and hence, only modified the order of the Trial Court directing the respondents/defendants to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a., instead of 6% p.a., from the date of judgment and decree. The appellant is also directed to hand over the possession by taking the interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as modified by this Court forthwith. Interest to be paid within three weeks since already deposited the amount before the Trial Court as ordered after the disposal of the first appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32