- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101316 OF 2022 (SP-) BETWEEN: 1. MADEVAPPA @ MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA FAKKIRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NILANAHALLI, DODDABATI, TQ: & DIST: DAVANAGERI-577566. 2. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. MADEVAPPA @ MAHADEVAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, RESIDENT OF NANDIHALLI, TALUKA: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208. 3. MADHUSUDAN T.M. S/O. MADEVAPPA @ MAHADEVAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF NANDIHALLI, TALUKA: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208. 4. SUMATI D/O. MADEVAPPA @ MAHADEVAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF NANDIHALLI, TALUKA: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581208. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHOK I. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA SANNAGOUDRA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF HALAGERI, TALUKA: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH XLII RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2020 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, DATED 29.03.2022 AS WELL AS PARTLY DECREED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR IN O.S. NO.276/2017 DATED 06.03.2020. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2022 passed in RA No.25 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranibennur, (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) allowing the appeal in part and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed in OS No.276 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional JMFC Ranibennur, (for short, ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and as the defendants are in need of money, executed a registered Agreement of Sale on 02.12.2013 in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- and thereby the defendants have received the earnest amount of Rs.75,000/- as advance from the plaintiff and the balance consideration of Rs.30,000/- is to be payable by the plaintiff at the time of registration of Sale Deed. It is further stated in the plaint that, the plaintiff was willing to discharge his contractual obligations, however, the defendants have avoided to discharge their contractual obligations, and therefore, the plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 22.09.2017 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 calling upon the defendants to execute the registered Sale Deed the said notice was served on the defendants, however, defendants failed to comply with the request made by the plaintiff and as such, plaintiff has filed OS No.276 of 2017 seeking relief of specific performance of the contract. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that, the defendants have not entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and suit schedule property is the Inam land and therefore, same cannot be alienated in favour of plaintiff and accordingly, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 6. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 06 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand, defendants examined one witness as DW1 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.D1 to D14. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part by refusing to grant the relief of specific performance, however, directed the defendants to refund the earnest amount with interest and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.25 of 2020 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2022 allowed the appeal and granted relief of specific performance of the contract and being aggrieved by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 the same, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. 8. I have heard Sri. Ashok I. Badiger, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. M. R. Kuppellur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Sri. Ashok I. Badiger, learned counsel for the appellants submits that, both the courts below have committed an error that, the land in question is granted land (Inam Land) and it cannot be alienated in favour of other persons, and therefore, the Agreement of Sale itself is void. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the defendants have denied the execution of Sale Deed dated 02.12.2013 and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 10. Sri. M.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the respondent sought justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the both the courts below and perused the original records. The plaintiff and defendants have entered into a registered Agreement of Sale dated 02.12.2013 whereby the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.1,05,000/- and have received Rs.75,000/- as advance and obligated to execute the registered Sale Deed upon receipt of the balance of Rs.30,000/-. Perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the plaintiff has examined witnesses to prove the execution of the registered Sale Deed. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 issued legal notice dated 22.09.2017 (Ex.P4) and same was acknowledged by the defendants as per Ex.P5. Undisputedly, no reply was given by the defendants, in that view of the matter, the plaintiff has proved the readiness and willingness to execute the registered Sale Deed and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, granting relief of specific performance is in accordance with declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Venkatesh vs. A.S.C. Murthy, (dead) by Legal representatives and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 280, wherein, it is held that, in a case of registered Agreement of Sale wherein essentials of the requirement of the specific performance is proved by the plaintiff and in such eventuality, the relief of specific performance is to be granted in favour of agreement holder. It is also noted that nothing is produced by the defendants to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5663 RSA No. 101316 of 2022 establish that land in question is granted and sale of the same is in violation of terms of grant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal as the appeal. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Since, the defendants /appellants have not made out a ground for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the Admission stage itself. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17