- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1157 OF 2015 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G VENKTAPPA S/O RAGHANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O D.KOTTALA VILLAGE RODDAM MANDAL PENUKONDA TALUK ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(i). 1(ii). 1(iii) SRI. B. LAKSHMINARAYANA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. ALUVELAMMA W/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KUM. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS KUM. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 1(iv). 1(v). KUM. REVATHI D/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MASTER SAI SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE B. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1(iii) TO 1(v) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.ALUVELAMMA ALL RESPONDENTS ARE R/O MADAKASIRA TOWN ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH -515001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA .,ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2015 PASSED IN R.A NO.64/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S. NO.164/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2015 passed in R.A. No.64 of 2013 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, whereby, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 passed in O.S. No. 164 of 2007 by the Itinerary Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Pavagada, decreeing the plaintiff’s suit, was confirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the plaint, are that the defendant, being the owner of the suit schedule property, was in need of money. Consequently, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.2007, under which the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 consideration of Rs. 7,10,320/-. An advance amount of Rs.20,320/- was paid by the plaintiff, and the remaining amount to be payable on or before 10.06.2007. It is further averred that, the defendant has to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the defendant declared that the property to be his self-acquired property. It is further stated that, despite repeated requests and notices dated 02.06.2007 and 28.09.2007, the defendant failed to execute the registered Sale Deed. The defendant received the notices but did not respond to the same, hence, the plaintiff filed O.S. No.164 of 2007, seeking specific performance of the agreement. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. The defendant specifically contended that he did not receive the alleged advance amount and denied the execution of the Agreement of Sale. Defendant also asserted that the suit property is joint family - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 property, jointly owned along with his sons, and hence, the suit it bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for consideration. 6. To substantiate their claim, the plaintiff examined 04 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and produced 05 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P5. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and did not produce any documents. A Court Commissioner was appointed, and 03 documents were marked as Exhibits C1 to C3. 7. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 11.02.2013, decreed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred R.A. No.64 of 2013, which came to be dismissed on 19.03.2015 by the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Challenging the concurrent findings of both courts below, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 defendant/appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. I have heard Sri. Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Sri. Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the court to the terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.2007 and submitted that the said Agreement of Sale is conditional agreement whereby, the plaintiff agreed to complete the transaction by 10.06.2007 and in the absence of the same both the courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendant and his sons and therefore, the Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.2007 itself is void document and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. Finally, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 it is contended that the plaintiff failed to comply with parameters of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as there was no acceptable evidence of the plaintiff’s with regard to readiness and willingness to perform the contract. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.N.Krishnamurthy (since dead by deceased) Thr. Lrs. vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 2022 SC 3361. Accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 10. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued that the suit property is the self-acquired property of the defendant, having purchased under a registered Sale Deed. It is further argued that, the execution of the Agreement of Sale was established by examining attesting witnesses (PW2 and PW3) and the scribe (PW4). It was further submitted that two notices (Exhibits P2 and P3) were issued by the plaintiff and both the notices were duly acknowledged by the defendant, yet - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 no reply was made. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that, the argument raised with regard to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Upon considering the facts and legal contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased it under a registered Sale Deed. Perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.2007 (Exhibit P1), would indicate that, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.7,10,320/- and received an advance of Rs.20,320/, which is not disputed by the parties. While the agreement required that, the plaintiff to pay the balance amount by 10.06.2007, however, the defendant failed to demand the payment of balance amount of sale consideration which indicate that defendant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 has no issue relating to conclude the contract. On the other hand, plaintiff has examined witnesses to the Agreement of Sale dated 22.02.2007 as PW2 and PW3 and Scribe to the said Agreement of Sale has been examined as PW4, who deposed about the execution of the Agreement of Sale. It is also to be noted that plaintiff, caused notice dated 02.06.2007 (Exhibit P2) and notice dated 28.09.2007 (Exhibit P3) calling the upon the defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed dated and same was not answered by the defendant by way of reply and therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. 12. The argument regarding non-compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, is not sustainable in the light of the fact that the plaintiff caused two notices, calling upon the defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed and there was no rebuttal from the defendant. In that view of the matter, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32066 RSA No. 1157 of 2015 Murthy and the decision reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 722 supports the findings of the courts below. 13. Therefore, I do not find material irregularity or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Since, the defendant /appellant has not made out a ground for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the Admission stage itself. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29