- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2015 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI NANJA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SRI MALLAREDDY S/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SRI MOHANRAJ S/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT KEMPAIAHANAPALYA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572711 3. SMT SARASAMMA W/O SRI RAJANNA D/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O KENGERI UPNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 060. 4. SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI PAPAREDDY D/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O SHIVANAHALLI H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 5. SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O KEMPAIAHNAPALYA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 572 711 6. SMT ANUSUYAMMA D/O LATE SRI NANJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O KEMPAIAHNAPALYA BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 572 711 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHENNAKESHAVA B.S., ADVOCATE FOR A1-A4 & A6.) AND: SRI LEPAKSHAREDDY S/O SRI MALLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O MUDENAHALLI VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 572117 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 20.08.2015 PASSED IN RA NO. 79/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 16.09.2010 PASSED IN OS NO. 136/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2015 in RA.No.79/2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2010 in O.S.No.136/2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, the defendant has entered an agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 with the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit schedule property for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also stated that on the date of the agreement of sale, defendant has received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid within 3 months from the date of the execution of the agreement. It is also stated that, the plaintiff made a request for execution of the registered sale deed and also convened panchayats for resolution of the dispute. However, the defendant has not made any effort to execute the registered sale deed and as such the plaintiff has filed OS.No.136/2006 before the Trial Court seeking relief of the specific performance of the contract. 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and contented that, the agreement dated 19.12.2005 said to have been relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted document and the defendant never executed the said agreement with the plaintiff and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined the 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The defendant himself was examined as DW1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 16.09.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred RA No.79/2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellant Court after re-appreciating the materials on record by its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2015, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS.No.136/2006. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred this appeal. 6. This Court vide order dated 29.06.2016, formulated the following substantial questions of law: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 " 1) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff when the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as contemplated U/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act? 2) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as contemplated U/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act? 3) Whether the lower Appellate court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 7. I heard Sri Chennakeshava B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri V.V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Sri Chennakeshava B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the defendant has disputed the execution of the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 and in this regard, he refers to the cross-examination of PWs2 to PW4 and submitted that, there is discrepancy in so far as the place of execution of the document either at Harohally or at Ramanagara and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 the said aspect of the matter, was not considered by both the Courts below. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the plaintiff has not shown any readiness and willingness to execute the registered sale deed, and also he submitted that, no document has been produced by the plaintiff to establish that he was ready with the sum of Rs.50,000/- which was the balance sale consideration amount said to have been made by the plaintiff to the defendant. 10. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, both the Courts below have not given finding with regard to the discretion vested with the Courts below in respect of the relief of specific performance concerned as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 11. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V Manjunath v/s Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy and Ors1, and contended that, both the Courts below have not properly exercised the discretion available to the Court by considering the averments made by the defendant in the written statement. Hence, he sought for interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, Sri V.V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and perused the material on record. On careful consideration of the finding recorded by both the Courts below would indicate that, the plaintiff and defendants were relatives and the plaintiff and defendant 1 RFA No.498/2013, DD 06.03.2021 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 have entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005, wherein, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and on the date of agreement itself, the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant and agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs.50,000/- within 3 months of execution of the agreement. Since, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has dispute with regard to Ex.P1-agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005, I have carefully examined the deposition of PWs2 to PW4 wherein, PW2 and PW4 are the attestors to the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 and PW3 is a scribe to the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005. Both the attestors to the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 i.e. PW2 and PW4 have in unequivocal terms deposed that the agreement was executed at Harohally and it is also deposed by both the witnesses by identifying the thumb impression of the defendant and also stated that the plaintiff has also, put the signature on the said document. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 14. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 (Ex.P1). In so far as the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is concerned, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph 11 to 14 are concerned, since the plaintiff has already paid 4/5th of the total consideration of the amount to the defendant and also taking into consideration that, the defendant has not examined the plaintiff with regard to his financial condition to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- in the evidence and further taking into consideration the finding recorded by both the Courts below with regard to the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and in the light of the observations made by the Trial Court on issue No. 2, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by both the Courts below is just and proper. In that view of the matter, since both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36233 RSA No. 1647 of 2015 19.12.2005 (Ex.P1) and the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant, I am of the view that, the substantial question of law referred to above favours the plaintiff. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Hence, the judgment referred to by the appellants cannot be made available to the facts on record. 15. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no further orders have to be made in respect of the pending applications. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SPV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53