- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1630 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI N VENUGOPAL, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.299, VENKATADRINILAYA, P.C. EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KOLAR 563102. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER, SMT. N.V. JAMUNA, D/O LATE N VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 41, SRIRAM NAGAR, OORGAUMPET, K.G.F-563 120. …APPELLANT (BY SRI V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YESHODAMMA, W/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 2. SRI M NAGABUSHAN, S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 3. SRI M SHAHSIKUMAR, S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 4. SMT. VANITHA, W/O KAVERAPPA, D/O LATE G MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT 54, 3RD FLOOR, KHB COLONY, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU-560038. 5. SRI K. SHANKAR, S/O LATE KANNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 'O' DANIEL ROAD, ANDERSONPET, KGF-563 113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.207/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC, KGF, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.331/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is listed for admission. 3. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff while seeking the relief of specific performance, is that the defendants have executed an agreement of sale dated 28.02.2005, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- and also they have received a sum of ₹4,00,000/- towards part performance of contract and also it is the case of the plaintiff that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is barred by law of limitation. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and also answered Additional Issue No.1 in affirmative in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 by limitation since agreement is of the year 2005, the suit is filed in 2011 and time is the essence of contract. Apart from that, the trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the very agreement and payment of ₹4,00,000/- as contended by the plaintiff is not proved as well as the ready and willingness is also not proved and dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, RA No. 207/2022 was filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court formulated the points; whether the trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of sale agreement in his favour by defendant No. 1; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that the sale agreement in question is created and concocted document; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that plaintiff has also failed to prove his readiness and willingness; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that the suit of plaintiff is barred by law of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 limitation; whether the trial Court has not properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and whether the trial Court also erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and refusing to grant the relief. The Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record answered point Nos. 1 to 5 in the negative and so also point Nos.7 to 9 and answered point No.6 in the affirmative with regard to the delay in filing the appeal is concerned and condoned the delay. 5. The counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in not appreciating the material available on record and counsel also vehemently contended that when defendant No.2 admitted the very execution of agreement, at least, the trial Court and Appellate Court ought to have ordered to refund the advance amount of ₹4,00,000/- and the same was not done. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contends that in spite of an agreement was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 executed on 20.08.2005 by defendant No.1 by agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of ₹5,00,000/-, ought not to have dismissed the suit. The finding of the trial Court that defendant No.1 has not executed any agreement of sale much less Ex.P2 in favour of plaintiff by receiving advance consideration is not justified and plaintiff has failed to prove that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract is also erroneous and hence, this court has to admit to frame the substantial question of law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that first of all, the alleged sale agreement is a created document and according to the plaintiff, the sale agreement was executed defendant No.2 with the forged signature of defendant No.1 and there was no any cordial relationship between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and property is also standing in the name of the defendant No. 1. When such being the case, the very execution of sale agreement by the person who is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 authorized or having any right to execute the sale agreement does not arise. Both the Courts taken note of the said fact into consideration, dismissed the suit and it does not requires any interference. 7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and having considered the material available on record, it is not in dispute that property originally belongs to defendant No.1, who is the wife of defendant No.2 and also the plaintiff has not placed any documentary proof before the Court that wife has authorized defendant No.2 to execute the sale agreement. It is also important to note for having made the payment is also concerned, when the property stands in the name of the wife, plaintiff ought to have paid the sale consideration to defendant No.1 and not to defendant No.2 and the very contention of the defendants is that the said document was created and hence, the very contention of the appellant's counsel that both the Courts ought to have ordered for refund of money also cannot be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 accepted, for the reason that, the person who had executed allegedly the sale agreement was not having any authorization and also he was not having any title to execute the sale agreement and while entering into an agreement itself, the plaintiff ought to have verified the title. Apart from that, counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that both defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are not in cordial relationship and also counsel would vehemently contend that when there was no any sale agreement, the question of executing the Sale Deed by granting the relief of specific performance does not arise. It is also important to note that, admittedly, the sale agreement was entered in the year 2005, time is the essence of contract and that one year period is mentioned in the sale agreement. But suit was filed on 04.07.2011 and when the time is the essence of contract, plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within 3 years but not filed the same. With regard to the limitation also, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44314 RSA No. 1630 of 2024 having taken note of material available on record. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have taken note of factual aspects of the case and question of law. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47