- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 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. 100525 OF 2020 (SP-) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. DADASAB INAMDAR, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GORAVANKOLLA VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: NAJIRSAB S/O. MOHAMMADASAB NADAF, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VADERATTI VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 7.03.2020 IN R.A.NO.529/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT BELAGAVI IN ALLOWING THE REGULAR APPEAL BY REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.20/2014 DATED 16.07.2019 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SAUNDATTI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020 in R.A.No.529/2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Belagavi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019 in O.S.No.20/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Saundatti (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit property is belonging to the defendant and the defendant offered to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant was in need of financial assistance. Hence, the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.01.2013 with defendant to purchase the suit property for total consideration of ₹9,25,000/- and on the date of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff has paid ₹1,00,000/- to the defendant as advance, with a condition that the remaining sale consideration of ₹8,25,000/- will be paid to the defendant on the date of execution of the registered sale deed. It is further stated in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 plaint that the defendant has not shown any interest in execution of the registered sale deed despite request made by the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has caused legal notice dated 13.09.2013 calling upon the defendant to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. The said notice was duly served on the defendant, however, the defendant has not given any reply nor come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Hence the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.20/2014 seeking relief of specific performance. 3.1. After service of notice, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement disputing the execution of agreement of sale dated 24.01.2013 with the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff himself has forged signature of the defendant, which was obtained on blank paper and concocted the agreement in question to knockoff the property. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 3.3. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and produced 5 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 11 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D11. 3.4. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 16.07.2019, rejected the claim made by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract, however directed the defendant to refund the advance amount of ₹1,00,000/- with interest. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.529/2019 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This court, vide order dated 28.09.2020, formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 1. Whether the First appellant Court was justified in reversing findings of the Trial Court, notwithstanding the fact that there is no proof with regard to the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform remaining part of contract which had essence of time? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the memo filed by the plaintiff to show his readiness and willingness which also had insufficient funds? 5. I have heard Sri. Rajashekhar R Gunjalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Mrityunjaya S Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. It is the main contention of Sri. Rajashekhar R Gunjalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit in whole without considering the aspect that there was no agreement of sale between the plaintiff and defendant and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. It is also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that despite issuing legal notice, the plaintiff has not proved his financial status for executing the registered sale deed and nothing has been shown before the Trial Court with regard to availability of funds required for execution of the registered sale deed and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri.Mrityunjaya S Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, justifies the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. On careful examination of Ex.P2-agreement of sale, wherein the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of sale and thereby the defendant has received advance amount of ₹1,00,000/- from the plaintiff out of total sale consideration amount of ₹9,25,000/-. It is also to be noted here that, the plaintiff has issued legal notice (Ex.P3) dated 18.09.2013 calling upon the defendant to execute the registered sale deed. Undisputedly, the defendant has not given reply to the legal notice dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 18.09.2013. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, the plaintiff has adduced the evidence of PW2 to prove the agreement of sale produced at Ex.P2. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, as the plaintiff has issued legal notice at Ex.P3 and same was received by the defendant as per Ex.P4, however the defendant has not raised a plea relating to availability of funds with the plaintiff and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed and the said impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S.Venkatesh v. A.S.C.Murthy (D) by LR’s1. 9. It is also to be noted that, in order to prove the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has issued legal notice and in that view of the matter, it would suffice, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, 1 AIR 2020 SC 930 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5693 RSA No. 100525 of 2020 I do not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court and same is required to be confirmed in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails. 10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28