- 1 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100009 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. PANDUREDDY S/O. NINGAREDDY BANDIWAD, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAVINDRANATH S/O. MAHADEVAPPA BEVOOR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SASVIHALLI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2018 IN O.S.NO.34/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 11:27:18 +0530 - 2 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.34/2014 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag wherein the suit filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract based on an agreement dated 26.04.2011 is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the due execution of the suit agreement. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that the defendant offered to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs.1,62,500/- per acre, and accordingly, executed agreement to sell on 25.04.2011 by receiving earnest money of Rs.8,25,000/-. The present suit is filed alleging that though the plaintiff is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he had kept the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,21,875/- ready, despite - 3 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 legal notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to come forward to complete the transaction. Hence, the present suit. 4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance, filed the written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant on the contrary, claimed that he is well settled in life and he possess sufficient resources to look after the family needs and therefore, disputed the suit agreement. The defendant contended that the suit land fetches market value of Rs.10 to 15 lakh per acre. Therefore, the defendant seriously disputed the transaction as set up by the plaintiff. The defendant further specifically pleaded that this document dated 26.04.2011 is concocted and created by the plaintiff, which is an outcome of fraud played by the plaintiff on the defendant. The defendant contended that since his relationship with his wife was strained, the plaintiff secured the signature on the blank stamp paper with an assurance that he would resolve the dispute between the defendant and his wife. Therefore, the - 4 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 defendant claimed that believing the words of the plaintiff, he signed on the blank stamp paper and this document is misused by the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff and the defendant to substantiate their respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined six independent witnesses and relied upon documentary evidence marked at Exs.P1 to P14. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and produced the documents relating to the matrimonial case between him and his wife, which are marked as Exs.D1 to D5. The trial court having taken note of the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiff answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the due execution of the suit agreement. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed by recording a finding that the plaintiff has not even entitled for refund of earnest money. The said judgment is under challenge. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. - 5 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 7. We have carefully examined the pleadings of the parties. We have also assessed the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties. The records are meticulously examined by us. The following points would are for our consideration. 1) Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of the suit agreement? 2) Whether the finding of the trial court that the defendant has succeeded in proving that the plaintiff has concocted and created the agreement to sell with an intention to gulf the property owned by the defendant as pleaded in the written statement is perverse and palpably erroneous? Finding on Point Nos.1 and 2: 8. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of specific performance and his claim is based on an agreement to sell dated 26.04.2011, which is marked at Ex.P5. The defendant who is an Engineer by profession has seriously contested the suit by contending that there was no need for him to sell the suit property. Though the defendant admits his signature on the stamp paper, however, the defendant alleged that he never intended to - 6 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 sell the suit property. In the light of the serious challenge to this suit agreement and bearing in mind that the defendant has admitted his signature on the suit agreement in question, we have examined the suit agreement from the original records. The defendant asserts that he has singed the blank stamp paper under the pretext of solving the dispute with his wife. The records reveal that this stamp paper in fact was purchased by the plaintiff and not by the defendant. On meticulous examination of the suit agreement, which is marked at Ex.P5, it is noticed that this agreement is confined to a single page and its recital written in a cramp and condensed manner. Therefore, the theory set up by the defendant that this document is misused by the plaintiff appears to be probable. Furthermore, while the agreement mentions payment of earnest money of Rs.8,25,000/-, from the records, it is borne out that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate this payment of Rs.8,25,000/-. - 7 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 9. The testimony of P.W.7, who is the scribe of the document in question, raises serious doubts regarding the authenticity and legitimacy of the transaction. P.W.7 categorically stated that it was the plaintiff who approached him with the request to draft the agreement. Additionally, he confirmed that the plaintiff himself procured the requisite stamp paper for the execution of the document. More significantly, P.W.7 explicitly admitted that he prepared the document under the direct instructions of the plaintiff. It was at the plaintiff’s insistence that he recorded an acknowledgment of the payment of earnest money amounting to Rs.8,25,000/-. However, P.W.7 also unequivocally stated that this amount was not paid in his presence. This admission substantially weakens the plaintiff’s claim regarding the payment of the earnest money and raises questions about whether such a transaction ever took place as alleged. 10. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the other witnesses supporting the plaintiff’s claim appears to be self-serving and lacks credibility. Most of these - 8 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 witnesses are closely related to the plaintiff, which casts doubt on the objectivity and impartiality of their testimonies. Their statements, which merely reiterate the plaintiff’s claims regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment of earnest money, do not inspire confidence. There is an absence of any independent or neutral witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff’s assertion about the payment of Rs.8,25,000/-. The fact that these witnesses have a vested interest in the outcome of the case diminishes the reliability of their evidence. Given that their testimonies are unsupported by any tangible documentary proof or credible independent corroboration, their statements cannot be accorded significant weight in establishing the veracity of the plaintiff’s claims. 11. Another aspect that casts serious doubt on the plaintiff’s case is the background and financial standing of the defendant. The defendant is a qualified engineer by profession and has been engaged in employment abroad in multiple countries. Given this background, the claim - 9 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 that he would agree to sell 10 acres of land for a nominal sum of Rs.1,62,500/- appears highly implausible. The plaintiff has attempted to justify the alleged payment by stating that he operates a brokerage (Dalal) business and also owns agricultural lands, from which he managed to mobilize funds. However, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate these claims with any concrete evidence. There is no documentary proof such as bank statements, withdrawal records, or any other financial records to demonstrate that he indeed possessed and paid the amount of Rs.8,25,000/-. The absence of any supporting evidence further weakens his claim. Additionally, the plaintiff has not produced any material on record to show that the defendant was under financial duress or had any pressing necessity that compelled him to sell such a significant portion of land at an unreasonably low price. Independent witnesses, whose testimonies could have added credibility to the plaintiff’s assertions, have also failed to inspire confidence. Given these glaring inconsistencies and the lack of credible evidence, the - 10 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 alleged transaction appears doubtful for two primary reasons: (i) the manner in which the agreement was drafted on a single stamp paper without due formalities, and (ii) the complete absence of any persuasive evidence to establish that Rs.8,25,000/- was indeed paid to the defendant. Under these circumstances, the alleged execution of the agreement to sell cannot be accepted as a valid transaction warranting legal enforcement. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has made an attempt to persuade this court to exercise judicial discretion in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff, having allegedly invested a substantial sum of Rs.8,25,000/-, should be granted at least partial relief. However, such an argument is unsustainable given the doubtful nature of the transaction. The plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that he actually made the alleged payment. When a party approaches the court claiming to have made a significant financial transaction dating back to 2011, it is expected that at least some form of documentary proof, such as bank - 11 - RFA NO.100009 of 2019 statements, withdrawal slips, or any other relevant financial records, would be presented. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant, and the plaintiff alone must establish the veracity of his claim. Since the court finds the very execution of the suit agreement to be doubtful, the question of refunding the alleged earnest money does not arise. Consequently, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, affirming the lack of credibility in the plaintiff’s claims, and point No.2 is answered in the negative, denying any relief to the plaintiff in this case. 13. For the forging reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh