- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1262 OF 2017 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT. S GEETHA W/O. JAYACHANDRA, D/O. LATE. SHIVALINGAPPA AND SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 107, DURGAMBHA TEMPLE STREET, NAZARBAD, MYSURU - 570 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH B.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.K. PEMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS, 1(A). K P SEETHAMMA W/O. LATE. K K PEMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 1(B). K P HARISH S/O. LATE. K K PEMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 1(C). K.P. POOVANNA S/O. LATE. K K PEMMAIAH, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENT 1(A) TO 1(C) ARE RESIDING AT BADAGORAKEN VILLAGE, SRIMANGALA TALUK - 571 217, COORG DISTRICT. 2. SMT. C SUSHEELA NANJAPPA W/O. LATE. CC NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. APPANNA S/O. LATE. CC NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SMT. PONNAMMA D/O. LATE. CC NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SRI. POVAMMA D/O. LATE. CC NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 6. SMT. SACHI D/O. LATE. CC NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NALKERI VILLAGE, VIRAJAPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT - 571 218. 7. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE. B K PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 RESIDING AT 122/B, 1ST MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 001. 8. SMT. USHA VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLER, SMT. K.H. RAJANI, R/AT D.NO. 982, NAVANISHA, 9TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 01.02.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 282/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 05.10.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.645/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017 in R.A.No.282/2014 (R.A.No.37/2013) on the file of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 III Additional District Judge, Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as "First Appellate Court") dismissing the appeal, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2012 in O.S.No.645/2007 on the file of I Additional First Civil Judge & JMFC., Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal are that, the mother of the plaintiff had entered into a Sale Agreement dated 13.05.1989 with defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.35,000/-. It is also stated in the Sale Agreement that, the plaintiff had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance. Further it is pleaded in the plaint that, the possession of the suit schedule property had been handed over to the mother of the plaintiff by the defendants. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 4. It is also stated that, on 13.11.1989, defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2 had executed another Sale Agreement confirming the earlier Sale Agreement dated 13.05.1989 and had received further sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-. It is also stated that, another Sale Agreement dated 10.02.1990 was executed between the parties wherein it was stated that the sale agreement would be executed after securing the permission from the Government. 5. It is further stated in the plaint that, the defendants, despite efforts by the plaintiff to execute the registered Sale Deed, refused to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also stated that, in the meanwhile, the mother of the plaintiff died leaving behind a Will dated 10.04.2003 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a notice on 09.04.2004 to the defendants calling upon them to execute a registered Sale Deed. In view of the refusal by the defendants, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 plaintiff had filed O.S.No.645/2007 seeking relief of specific performance of contract. 6. After service of notice, the defendants appeared and filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended by the defendants that, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and that apart, there is a delay in filing the suit and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked seventeen documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The defendants have examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked fifteen documents as Exs.D1 to D15. 8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 05.10.2012 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had preferred R.A.No.282/2014 (Old R.A.No.37/2013) on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.645/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 9. Heard Sri. Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 10. Sri. Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, delay in filing the suit seeking relief of specific performance is on account of the fact that the agreement holder – mother of the plaintiff died during the year 2000 and thereafter, the plaintiff did not to aware about the execution of Sale Agreement referred to above and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it is not in dispute with regard to the execution of Sale Agreements dated 13.05.1989, 13.11.1989 and 10.02.1990 (Exs.P1 to P3) between the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants. Though the aforementioned agreements have been entered into between the parties during 1989-90, however, the mother of the plaintiff has not taken any step to cause notice calling upon the defendants to execute a registered Sale Deed. 12. It is also forthcoming from the written statement filed by the defendants that, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, since the Sale Agreements are of the year 1989-90 and the suit is filed on 21.06.2007, I am of the view that, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the delay in filing the suit and has not showed sufficient cause for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38423 RSA No. 1262 of 2017 seeking relief under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. 13. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, no interference is called for by this Court. 14. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK