- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2419 OF 2017 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. 2. NIRANJANA BALIGA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. NEENA BALIGA W/O LATE M. NIRANJANA BALIGA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS KUMARI LAKSHMI D/O LATE M. NIRANJANA BALIGA AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS APPELLANT 2 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NEENA BALIGA AND VAKALTH IS BEEN EXECUTED BY HER MOTHER BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.4-14-1A SHREE MATHA NEAR COLLEGE ROAD UJIRE VILLAGE - 574240 BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 AND: 1. 1(a). SOMAPPA SAPALYA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. RADHA WIFE OF LATE SOMAPPA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 1(b). SMT. PADMAVATHI DAUGHTER OF LATE SOMAPPA SAPALYA, WIFE OF SRI. ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 1(c). SMT. CHAMPA DAUGHTER OF LATE SOMAPPA SAPALYA, WIFE OF SRI.RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 1(d). SRI. NARAYANA SON OF LATE SOMAPPA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 1(e). SMT. SUJATHA DAUGHTER OF LATE SOMAPPA SAPALYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BETTUGADDE-574240, BELTHANGADY KASABA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(e)) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 (1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2010 ON - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.197/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) BELTHANGADY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2017 in R.A.No.34/2010 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belthangady, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2010 in O.S.No.197/2008 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belthangady, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of the appeal are that, the plaintiff has entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2006 with the defendant agreeing to purchase the suit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 property for valuable consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-. The plaintiff has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance amount in respect of the schedule property and undertook to complete the entire sale transaction within two months from the date of the agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.197/2008, on the file of the Trial Court seeking relief of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2006. 4. After service of notice, the defendant has entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has not performed his obligation as per the sale agreement dated 23.11.2006 and accordingly, the defendant has issued notice dated 25.09.2007 calling upon the plaintiff by cancelling the aspect of sale. It is further sated in the written statement that the notice dated 26.09.2007 was served on the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff neither replied to the said notice nor taken any steps to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the subject matter of the suit. It is also averred in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 the written statement that the agreement dated 23.11.2006 has been cancelled by the defendant and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed issues for its consideration. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P3, and defendant got examined as D.W.1 and marked two documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, vide Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2010, decreed the suit and directed the defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the subject matter of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant has preferred R.A.No.34/2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, vide Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2017, allowed the appeal, consequently, Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.197/2008 came to be set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 6. It is noticed here that the plaintiff having died during the pendency of this appeal, his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellant Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. Jagadish Baliga N., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. K. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e). 8. Sri. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court, after appreciating the entire material on record, rightly decreed the suit by directing the defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed based on the sale agreement dated 23.11.2006 and same has been erroneously interfered with by the First Appellate Court and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to complete the entire transaction in respect of the subject land, however the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. K. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, invited the attention of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 Court to the notice dated 25.09.2007 (Ex.D2), wherein the defendant has issued legal notice, cancelling the sale agreement dated 23.11.2006 as the plaintiff has not taken any steps to complete the entire transaction in terms of the conditions stipulated in the said agreement and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, would indicate that, plaintiff has entered into an Agreement of Sale with defendant on 23.11.2006 to purchase the suit property for total consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-. It is also to be noted that plaintiff has paid Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment in respect of the sale consideration. Though time was stipulated in the said agreement that plaintiff has to complete the entire transaction within two months from the date of the agreement, however, no steps have been taken by the plaintiff to pay the remaining sale consideration amount and to get the registered Sale Deed in respect of the subject matter. On the other hand, the defendant has issued a legal notice dated 25.09.2007 (Ex.D2) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 wherein the defendant has cancelled the agreement dated 23.11.2006 on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to adhere to the conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale dated 23.11.2006. Indisputably, it is the duty of the plaintiff to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale and to pay the remaining sale consideration amount and to make claim for execution of the registered Sale Deed in respect of the subject matter. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. DAIVASIGAMANI Vs. S. SAMBANDAN reported in (2020) 3 SCC 280, wherein it is held that mere plea of the plaintiff that he was ready to pay the remaining consideration amount without substantiating the same, cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted from the finding recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proved the execution of the Agreement of Sale, apart from the sale agreement is an unregistered document and admitted by defendant No.1 by examining the witness of the said agreement with regard to the conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28967 RSA No. 2419 of 2017 11. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing from the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale till the issuance of the notice by defendant on 25.09.2007 (Ex.D2), I am of the view that, the First Appellate Court has rightly interfered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and therefore, I do not find any perversity in the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby confirmed. It is also to be noted that no acceptable arguments have been addressed to frame substantial question of law in this appeal as required under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. 12. Pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38