- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN: MAHESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE NANDAKISHORE R/O 3RD STAGE, GOLD TOWER, NO.50, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O KEMPEGOWDA 2. LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. RAMESHA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.G. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, R7 AND R8 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025, NOTICE TO R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) 5. BALAKRISHNA, S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 6. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 7. NAGU D/O RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER/GUARDIAN 3RD RESPONDENT -RAMESHA. 8. CHARAN 6 ½ YEARS, MINOR, S/O BALAKRISHNA SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER- MINOR GUARDIAN 5TH RESPONDENT BALAKRISHNA. ALL ARE R/O HOSA UNDAVADI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 606. 9. SRI. PRIYAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O HAROHALLI SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT BANGALORE - 562 112. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.3.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.83/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to challenge the judgment dated 08.03.2013 and the decree which was signed on 21.03.2013. 3. It appears that the defendant Nos.2 to 8 had entered into an agreement dated 01.08.2007 for sale of the suit schedule property on a total monetary consideration of Rs.54,28,750/- and the plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration would be payable to the defendant Nos.1 to 8 at - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 the time of registration after furnishing the records of the suit schedule property. It was agreed that within four months the defendants would furnish all the necessary documents and get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. When the sale deed was not registered and the defendants failed to furnish the documents, a legal notice was sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants on 06.03.2008. But despite receipt of the legal notice, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, a suit was filed categorically stating that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants did not come forward to perform their part of the contract. 4. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.9 was impleaded, as he was the subsequent purchaser of the suit property and summons were issued to the defendant No.9 also. The defendant Nos.1 and 9 filed separate written statements. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 adopted the written statement of the defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 admitted being owners of the suit schedule property as well as the execution of the sale agreement dated 01.08.2007, for the aforestated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 consideration and also admitted receipt of the advance sale consideration. They also admitted that the period stipulated under the contract was four months. It was contended that they had handed over all the original records of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. After receipt of the said documents, it is alleged, the plaintiff did not come forward to get the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration. Therefore, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.9 by sale deed dated 24.01.2008 after the lapse of stipulated period of sale agreement. The possession of the suit schedule property was also delivered in favour of defendant No.9. 5. The defendant No.9 contended that the suit was not maintainable. The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and payment of advance sale consideration was also denied. Allegations of ambiguity in the contract, uncertainty in the sale stipulations of contract and the plaintiff being never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, were made. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 6. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants had entered into a sale agreement dated 01/08/2007 in respect of suit property for a sum of Rs.54,28,750/- agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the passing of part sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff had not come forward to get the sale deed registered in his favour and he had violated the conditions of the agreement and therefore on expiry of the period stipulated the defendants sold the land in favour of defendant No.1 as per sale deed dated 24/01/2008? 4. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of contract? 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for purpose of court fee? 6. Whether the plaintiff is for specific performance of contract dated 01/08/2007 as prayed in the plaint? 7. What is the relief parties are entitled to? 8. What order or decree?" 7. Issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were answered in the affirmative while issue No.3 was answered in the negative. 8. The decree for a specific performance of contract was issued. 9. While discussing the issue Nos.1 to 4 , it was noted by the trial Court that on behalf of the defendants, that it was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 only the defendant No.9, who examined himself as DW-1 in support of his contention that he was the bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property and that the sale agreement aforesaid is unenforceable. 10. Embargo on purchase of agricultural land by the plaintiff and want of mandatory legal notice issued to the defendant Nos.1 to 8 within time, was stated. He had produced the revenue records to contend that due mutation was effected in his name post the execution and registration of the sale deed. 11. The Court recorded a finding, that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as proved by the PW1. The finding was that the plaintiff issued the notice immediately after the stipulated period of contract and had called upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff filed the suit within five months after date of issuance of notice. On the other hand, the defendants Nos.1 to 8, without any sufficient cause failed to perform their part of the contract. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 12. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs, and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.48,78,750/- as per the sale agreement, Ex-P1, within one month from the date of the order and to intimate the defendant Nos.1 to 8 about the said deposit. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 were also mandated to execute the sale deed within two months from the date of receipt of the said intimation, failing which, the plaintiff was given liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. The decree was accordingly prepared. 13. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, he being a bonafide purchaser, an appropriate issue ought to have been framed in this regard by the trial Court. It is further contended that despite the direction contained in the order of the Court, neither the sale consideration had been deposited by the plaintiff within the specified time nor was the sale deed executed in his favour by the defendant Nos.1 to 8. 14. As far as the objection with regard to non-framing of issue is concerned, in case an issue did exist between the parties to that effect, it was for the appellant to have moved - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 the Court under the appropriate provision of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for framing such an issue, which evidently he did not. 15. Even otherwise, from the material on record, we do not see any such issue arising between the parties. As far as the contention of non-deposit of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff in terms of the order passed by the trial Court is concerned, the same would not inure to the benefit of the appellant herein. Inasmuch as the alleged conduct on the part of the plaintiff would not be a ground for upsetting the decree made. Such a conduct of the plaintiff may reflect on the execution of the decree but not on the validity of the decree. 16. We find that the decree has been made in accordance with the judgment dated 08.03.2013 passed by the trial Court, which is sound. The execution of the agreement to sell, part payment of the sale consideration and readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract has been duly proved by the plaintiff, who appeared as PW1. Apart from the written statement filed by/on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 8, none of these defendants appeared as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35293-DB RFA No. 1572 of 2013 witnesses to contradict the stand of the plaintiff. It is only the defendant No.9, the appellant herein, who appeared as DW-1 to contest the validity of the sale agreement. The defendant No.9, who claims to have stepped into the shoes of defendants Nos.1 to 8, cannot dispute the validity of the sale agreement in view of the admission made by the other defendants in their written statement. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.As stand disposed of. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16