- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5120 OF 2013 (SP-) BETWEEN: SMT. SUDHA W/O. SUBHASH ANVEKAR, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, PERMANENT R/O. CHITAKULA, TAL: KARWAR, DIST: KARWAR, NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.2927, CHATEGALLI (REDEGALLI), POST: BARSI, DIST: SHOLAPUR, MAHARASTRA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANANDU MAJALIKAR S/O. DAMODAR MAJALIKAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND MILK VENDOR, R/O. SHIRUVAD, POST: SHIRUVAD, TAL AND DIST: KARWAR-581407. 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA @ ANITA NAGEKAR W/O. ANIL NAGEKAR, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHIRUVAD, POST: SHIRUVAD, TAL AND DIST: KARWAR-581407. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), KARWAR IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.34/2006, DATED 19.01.2011 ALLOWING THE APPEAL MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN.), KARWAR PASSED BIN O.S.NO.99/1996, DATED 14.06.2006. IT IS FURTHER PRAYED MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 THAT, THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE DECREED WITH COST CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/1996, DATED 14.06.2006. SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 in R.A.No.34/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar1 allowing the appeal in part and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2006 in O.S.No.99/1996 with regard to earnest money on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karwar2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and as such the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property as per the agreement of sale dated 05.11.1986 for a total consideration of Rs.20,000/- and the plaintiff has paid Rs.6,000/- as advance amount. It is also stated that, the plaintiff has paid part consideration in respect of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the defendants refused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.99/1996 seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 05.11.1986. 4. After service of notice, 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 any agreement with the plaintiff and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 7 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. The defendants have examined 2 witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and no documents were produced by the defendants. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 14.06.2006, decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.34/2006 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011, allowed the appeal in part, and directed the defendants to refund the earnest money of Rs.6,000/- with interest. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 7. I have heard Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.S.H.Mittalkhod, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the sale agreement dated 05.11.1986 and further the independent witnesses have been examined with respect to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and therefore the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. It is the specific contention of the defendants/respondents herein that the suit land is a tenanted land and same has been granted on 24.06.1980 and the execution of the agreement of sale dated 05.11.1986, even though the said agreement is disputed by the defendants, is unenforceable and accordingly argued for dismissal of the appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property as per the Ex.P.1 - agreement of sale dated 05.11.1986. Undisputedly, the land is a tenanted land and same was granted to the defendant on 24.06.1980 (Ex.P.4). In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayanamma and Another vs. Govindappa and Others reported in (2019) 19 SCC 42, even if the agreement of sale at Ex.P.1 is executed and same is within 15 years of the prohibited period and therefore the agreement of sale at Ex.P.1 is unenforceable and therefore the First Appellate Court has rightly refused the agreement of sale and accordingly, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court favouring the plaintiff for relief of specific performance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5465 RSA No. 5120 of 2013 11. In the result, the appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33