- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100775 OF 2019 (SP-) BETWEEN: SRI. GANGAPPA A MARENNAVAR BY ITS LRS. 1a. SMT. LAKSHMIBAI G. MARENNAVAR W/O. LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURES 1b. SRI. RAJAKUMAR G. MARENNAVAR S/O. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURES 1c. SRI. MALLAPPA G. MARENNAVAR S/O. LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURES R1(A) TO (C) R/O. ARJUNAWAD ROAD, NEAR MAHAVEER SCHOOL, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590309. 1d. SMT. SUVARNA S. BUGADIKATTI W/O. SIDARAYI D/O. LATE GANGAPPA OCC: AGRICULTURES R/O. INGALI, POST NIRWANAHATI HIDKAL DAM, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.17 11:53:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 AND: 1. SMT.LAXMIBAI A. PATIL W/O ANNAGOUDA PATIL, BY HER LR 1A. SRI. ARAVIND V N S/O. ANNAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL AND SERVICE BUSNIESS DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE MICRO ACADEMY (I) PVT. LTD., #189, AMAR JYOTI LAYOUT, DOMLUR RING ROAD, BENGALURU-71, ALSO R/O: AT C/O VILAS S/O BHIMAPPA NAIKAWADI NEAR DR.HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL MAHANTESH NAGAR, GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.11/2015 AS WELL IN O.S.NO.196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUKKERI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2019 IN R.A.NO.11/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUKKERI, WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND HUKKERI, WAS CONFIRMED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 in R.A.No.11/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2015 in O.S.No.196/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 05.12.1994 in respect of the suit schedule properties with the defendant and the total consideration was Rs.90,000/-. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has paid Rs.80,000/- as advance amount and undertook to pay remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- on the date of registration of the sale deed. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract. It is also stated in the plaint that the land belongs to one Laxmibai. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has caused legal notice to the defendant as the owner of the property – Laxmibai died on 04.05.2006 and the plaintiff succeeded to the estate of Smt.Laxmibai through testamentary disposition. It is stated that the defendant – Aravind claiming property through Will from testator Laxmibai. It is also stated that Laxmibai had filed O.S.No.74/2000 and stated about the execution of the sale agreement and accordingly suit is filed seeking relief of specific performance of contract. 4. On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 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 three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and produced 75 documents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.75. The defendant has examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and produced 69 documents and same were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.69. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2015 dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.11/2015 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the same was contested by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.196/2011. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Sri.Praveen Tarikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence of deceased Laxmibai in the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.74/2000 where the execution of the agreement dated 05.12.1994 find place in the said suit. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellant/plaintiff has paid Rs.80,000/- to the defendant out of total consideration of Rs.90,000/- and as such, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by both the Courts below and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited attention of the Court to the date of agreement as 05.12.1994 and suit is filed during 2011. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also invited attention of the Court to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and submitted that the suit itself is barred by time and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be confirmed in this appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with one Smt. Laxmibai, owner of the property in question who had executed Will in favour of the defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the said Laxmibai died on 04.05.2006. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Courts below that though the said agreement was entered into between the parties in 1994 and the defendant – Aravind claims to be legatee of the Will and taking into consideration the fact that the suit is filed on 25.11.2011 with inordinate delay and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the suit is barred by time. 11. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by both Courts below, I am of the view that no interference is called for under Section 100 of CPC as the suit is filed beyond the time as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934 RSA No. 100775 of 2019 12. In the result, appeal fails and same is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16