- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI G C JAYARAMAIAH AGE:48 YEARS, S/O SRI.CHINNEGOWDA, R/AT GUDIDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, PIN CODE:571428. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJESH.C, ADV. FOR SRI. V.S.ARBATTI &., ADV.) AND: SRI RAMEGOWDA AGE:52 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 S/O LATE SRI.LINGEGOWDA, GUDIDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, PIN CODE:571428. …RESPONDENT RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 27.8.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.3.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.179/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), AND JMFC, MADDUR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: *** - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012 passed in R.A.No.32/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and he agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the earnest money, and executed the registered sale agreement on 19.12.2003, and it was agreed that the defendant, after receiving the balance sale consideration amount, would execute a registered sale deed within 24 months. The defendant dodged the matter without executing the sale deed despite request made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is/was always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a register sale deed. The defendant replied to the said legal notice, untenably. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and denied the execution of the alleged registered sale agreement. It is contended that the defendant had borrowed a sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessity, and as a security for the repayment of the loan, executed the alleged sale agreement dated 19.12.2003. It is contended that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. It is also contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is contended that the defendant is not an absolute owner of the suit properties as they are ancestral joint family properties. It is contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Hence, there is no cause of action. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed registered sale agreement dated 19.12.2003 to sell the suit schedule properties in his favour? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for? 4) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and no documents were marked. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, and issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.03.2009. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.179/2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.32/2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference at the hands of this Court? 3) What order? 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 27.08.2012. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.179/2008 was set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, and directed the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute the registered sale date within three months from the date of passing the judgment, failing which, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed registered in accordance with law. 3.6. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.32/2009 vide judgment dated 27.08.2012, has filed this regular second appeal. 3.7. The plaintiff has appeared through the learned counsel, however, later on the learned counsel filed a memo for retirement. This Court, vide order 09.09.2025 accepted the memo, and permitted the learned counsel to retire from the case for the respondent/plaintiff, and the Registry was directed to show the name of the respondent/plaintiff in the cause list. 4. This Court, on 30.05.2016, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court when the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as contemplated under the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 provisions of Section 16(c) of the Special Relief Act, 1961? 2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant submit that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction, and not a sale transaction. He also submit that for arguments without admitting, the alleged sale agreement was executed on 19.12.2003, and time was the essence of the contract, i.e. 24 months was fixed for concluding the transaction. He submits that the plaintiff has not issued any legal notice within two years from the date of execution of an agreement of sale. He submits that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The said aspect was not absolutely considered - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 by the First Appellate Court. He also submit that the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008, i.e., almost two and half years from the last date of performing the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. Thus, there is a delay in filing the suit for specific performance of a contract. He submit that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief, and the same has to be exercised initially. He submit that the First Appellate Court has not correctly exercised its discretion, and committed an error in granting a relief of specific performance of a contract. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 alleging that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and he agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, and the said transaction to be concluded within 24 months from the date of execution of a sale agreement. The defendant, after receiving the advance sale consideration amount executed a registered sale agreement on 19.12.2003. The plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a registered sale deed. The defendant did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008, calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a register sale deed. The defendant replied untenably to the legal - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 notice denying the execution of the sale agreement and contented that the transaction between the plaintiff, and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1. He reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that the defendant executed a sale agreement, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the original registered sale agreement, which discloses that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a consideration of Rs.30,000 /- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and it was agreed that the plaintiff should pay the balance consideration amount and get the registered sale deed executed within 24 months from the date of execution of the said agreement. Ex.P2 is a copy of legal notice, which discloses that the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008 calling upon - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a registered sale deed. Ex.P3 is the copy of reply notice dated 13.05.2008, wherein the defendant denied to execute a registered sale deed on the ground that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction, Ex.P4 is the acknowledgement and Ex.P5 is the postal receipt. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it is suggested that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. Further, the plaintiff to prove the execution of a sale agreement, examined the attesting witness as PW.2, who has reiterated the examination-in-chief of PW.1, and he identified his signature on Ex.P1. His signature is marked as Ex.P1(c). 11. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and he has reiterated the written statement - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 averments in the examination-in-chief. Ex.P1 was confronted to DW.1. He admitted his signature on Ex.P1. However, the defendant has contented that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. Considering the entire evidence on record, admittedly, the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and received Rs.20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and executed a registered sale agreement on 19.12.2003. From the perusal of the contents of Ex.P1, time was the essence of contract. The parties to the agreement should conclude the sale transaction within 24 months from the date of execution of Ex.P1. The said period expires on 18.12.2005. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to get the registered sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the sale agreement. The plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008. The defendant has replied to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 the legal notice as per Ex.D3 marked as Ex.P2. The plaintiff has filed a suit on 03.07.2008. The plaintiff has failed to prove the requirements contemplated under Section 16(c) of the Act. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. The said aspect was not adequately appreciated by the First Appellate Court, and committed an error in passing a decree for a specific performance of a contract. Although the time expired on 18.12.2005, and the legal notice was issued on 15.04.2008, and even in issuing a legal notice there is a delay of more than 2 years in issuing a legal notice. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act. Further, the First Appellate Court has also not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 The First Appellate Court without assigning any reasons in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has passed impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. 12. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.2: In view of the discussion made in substantial question of law No.1, this Court has already recorded a finding in substantial question of law No.1 that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was/is ready and willing to perform this part of a contract as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Act. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the First Appellate Court, and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and further, no reason has been assigned by the trial Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The matter requires consideration by the First Appellate Court. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 As the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC, the First Appellate Court being the final fact finding Court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and is required to frame proper points for adjudication, and answer each issues framed by the trial Court, and re-appreciate the entire evidence placed on record. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has not properly framed the point for consideration, and not answered each issues raised by the First Appellate Court and also has not re- appreciated the entire evidence on record. The judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. A. RAMALINGAM reported in AIR 2011 SC 1492. As observed above, the matter requires reconsideration afresh, by the First Appellate Court. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.2 in the negative. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012 passed in R.A.No.32/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur is set aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court. iv. The appeal in R.A.No.32/2009 is restored to its original file. v. The First Appellate Court is directed to pass the judgment in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41039 RSA No. 111 of 2013 vii. The office is directed to transmit the records to the First Appellate Court. viii. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 09.12.2025 without awaiting any further notice. ix. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB