- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2020 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI. K V RANGAPPA S/O K T VARADAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE K V RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI K R NAGARAJ S/O LATE K V RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT KUMUDENAHALLI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127. 3. SMT. K.R. RADHAMMA D/O LATE K V RANGAPPA W/O T. VASU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D NO.2/19, BASAVANAKOIL KUPPAM MAIN ROAD GURUVANAYANAPALLI KRISHNAGIRI TALUK - 635 001. R Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 4. SRI. K.R. RAMESH S/O LATE K.V. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KUMUDENAHALLI VILLAGE AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 127. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. R. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH R/AT SANTHE MIDANA MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.141/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KOLAR REJECTING IA NO.VI FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC., AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.248/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLAR (ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Sarvanna S., learned counsel for respondent. 2. Present appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.248/2012 whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent came to be decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 09.01.2012 in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) came to be decreed: The agricultural landed properties situated at Kumdenahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar district. 1. Sy.No.14/2, meg. 1-13 acres and it is bounded on: East by – defendants own land West by – Jayamma’s land North by – K. R. Venkataramaiah land South by – defendants own land 2. Sy.No.32, meg. 1-26 acres and it is bounded on: East by – Pramilamma’s land West by – defendants own land North by – Kerekatte - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 South by – Government land. 3. Validity of the said judgment and decree was subject matter of RA No.141/2015 filed by the defendants which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 13.12.2019. 4. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether both the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit even though vendors are not having complete title over the subject property and without concurrence of remaining co-sharers, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted, since the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. Whether the discretion exercised by the courts below under Section 20 (c) of Specific Relief Act is correct? 3. Whether courts below ignored the weight of Ex.DW3 while answering the issue of joint family and erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiff?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 5. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit for specific enforcement of agreement to sell in respect of suit property dated 09.01.2012 came to be filed by plaintiff/respondent which was registered as O.S.No.248/2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, Sitting at Mulbagal. 6. Suit on due contest, came to be decreed by the Trial Court. 7. An appeal came to be filed by the defendants before the First Appellate Court challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in RA No.141/2015. 8. It is contended before the First Appellate Court that no such agreement as per Ex.P.1 came to be executed and agreement was a loan transaction and document was executed for the purpose of security which was fabricated into agreement to sell by the plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 9. Admittedly, suit agreement is a registered agreement and defendants were present before the sub- registrar for due execution of the suit agreement. 10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after holding that Ex.P.1 stands proved, has taken note of the fact that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.5,10,000/- sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is already paid as earnest money and only sum of Rs.10,000/- was balance consideration to be paid. 11. D.W.2 and 3 who are examined on behalf of the defendants are none other than the signatories to Ex.P.1. 12. D.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has incurred loss in tomato business. He has also admitted that to meet the urgent financial necessities, the agreement at Ex.P.1 came into existance. 13. No doubt, defendants having denied the proper execution of the agreement at Ex.P.1 were required to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 prove that it was a loan transaction and same has been concocted into agreement to sell. 14. On factual aspects, both the Courts have held that Ex.P.1 is a genuine document and registered agreement to sell. Therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Court. 15. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have preferred the present appeal and appeal came to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that agreement is not specifically enforceable in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 17. He would further contend that second question on which the appeal came to be admitted is proof of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and therefore, under the discretion which is vested in this Court under - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 Section 26 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific enforcement is to be denied. 18. In reply, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his arguments: a. Pemmada Prabhakar and Others v. Youngmen’s Vysya Association and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 355. b. Satish Kumar v. Karan Singh and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 352. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 20. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, Ex.P.1 is a registered document. Appeal came to be admitted as aforesaid and on the question of validity of Ex.P.1. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 22. Admittedly, item No.1 of suit property belonged to one Varadappa. He had five children namely Rangappa, Lakshmamma, Venkatamma, Venkataramanappa and Savitramma. It is the branch of Rangappa who were the vendors in Ex.P.1 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties. 23. Assuming that Rangappa had only 1/5th share in the suit property left behind by Varadappa insofar as item No.1 is concerned, after the specific enforcement of agreement to sell, the present respondent/plaintiff would step into the shoes of Rangappa in the partition suit which is pending in O.S.No.242/2015 and therefore, the question of Section 17 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case. 24. In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 “17.Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable.—(1) A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor— (a) who, knowing not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property; (b) who, though he entered into the contract believing that he had a good title to the property, cannot at the time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or letting, give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt.” (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale or hire of movable property.” 25. In the case on hand, vendors cannot be considered that they are non-owners to the property especially having regard to the recitals in Ex.P.1 itself. All that the vendors have agreed to sell to the respondent under Ex.P.1 is their share in suit item No.1 and their absolute ownership over suit item No.2. 26. Therefore, Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has no application at all to the case on hand. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 27. Now adverting to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Pemmada Prabhakar and Others v. Youngmen’s Vysya Association and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 355. In the said decision, paragraph Nos.28 to 30 it is held as under: “28. It is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is self-acquired property by late Pemmada Venkateswara Rao as he had purchased the said property vide sale deed Document No. 5174 of 1970 dated 24-11-1970 from his vendors. It is also an undisputed fact that the said property is intestate property. He is survived by his wife, three sons and three daughters. The said property devolved upon them in view of Section 8 of Chapter II of the Hindu Succession Act as the defendants are Class I legal heirs in the suit schedule property. Undisputedly, the agreement of sale, Ext. A-1 is executed only by Defendants 1 and 2. The third son, mother and three sisters who have got equal shares in the property have not executed the agreement of sale. In view of the matter, the agreement of sale executed by Defendants 1 and 2 who have no absolute right to property in question cannot confer any right whatsoever upon the plaintiffs for grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale in their favour. The said agreement is not enforceable in law in view of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in view of the right accrued in favour of Defendants 3 to 6 under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 29. The provisions of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act in categorical terms expressly state that a contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 lessor who does not have an absolute title and right upon the property. It is worthwhile to extract Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 here: “17.Contract to sell or let property by one who has no title, not specifically enforceable.—(1) A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor— (a) who, knowing not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the property; (b) who, though he entered into the contract believing that he had a good title to the property, cannot at the time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or letting, give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt.” In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Specific Relief Act, the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiffs and some of the co-sharers who do not have the absolute title to the suit schedule property is not enforceable in law. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and considered by both the first appellate court and the second appellate court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is vitiated in law. 30. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the agreement is valid, the names of three sons are mentioned in the agreement of sale, out of whom the agreement is executed by Defendants 1 and 2 and they assured that they would get the signatures of the third brother, namely, Srinivasa Rao and also of the remaining three sisters. At the time of execution of this agreement signatures were not obtained. Therefore, the agreement is not executed by all the co-sharers of the property which fact is evident from the recitals of the document itself. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance decree. This vital factual and legal aspect has been ignored by both the first appellate court and the second appellate court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is vitiated both on facts and law. Accordingly, Point (i) is answered in favour of the defendants. 28. Pertinently, in the case on hand, all the sharers of Rangappa’s branch are parties to Ex.P.1. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the said decision would not be any avail whatsoever to the appellant to advance their case. 29. All that the respondent would get in suit item No.1 is 1/5th share in the property left behind by Varadappa and there is no bar for Rangappa’s branch to execute the agreement to sell their share in the suit property in item No.1 of the suit property. 30. In the case of Pemmada Prabhakar and Others as referred to supra, there were three defendants and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are parties to the agreement to sell but they had assured that defendant No.3 would - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 also join. Such a factual situation has not arisen in the case on hand inasmuch as all the sharers’ of Rangappa’s branch are party to Ex.P.1. 31. The second decision on which the learned counsel for the appellants wants the appeal to be allowed is the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. Karan Singh and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 352. 32. Their Lordships in the case, while dealing with Section 9, 20 and 15(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and proviso thereof were dealing with a case wherein a contract of agreement to sell was itself doubtful. 33. In the case on hand, substantial question of law is not on the validity of Ex.P.1 inasmuch as Ex.P.1 is held to be proved as it is a registered document besides the cogent and convincing oral evidence. 34. Further, the answer elicited in the cross- examination of D.W.2, would make it clear that he had - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 incurred huge loss in the tomato business and for that purpose, they wanted to sell their share in suit item No.1 and item No.2 of the suit properties. 35. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, substantial question of law No.1 is held in negative and against the appellants. 36. Adverting to the substantial question of law No.2, which is framed under Section 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is concerned, since the very agreement is denied by the appellants, they cannot plead hardship inasmuch as the pleading of hardship and denial of the agreement, cannot go hand in hand. 37. In view of the same, substantial question of law No.2 is held in negative and against the appellants. 38. Insofar as substantial question of law No.3 is concerned, no doubt D.W.3 has stated that suit item No.1 is an joint family after Varadappa died. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35952 RSA No. 1070 of 2020 39. Admittedly, Varadappa died intestate and therefore, Rangappa being one of the children of Varadappa and wife of Varadappa also died, Rangappa had 1/5th share. 40. If the specific enforcement is carried out in respect of Ex.P.1, rights of Rangappa would be succeeded by the respondent/plaintiff and he will represent the share of Rangappa in the pending partition suit. 41. Therefore, substantial question of law No.3 is also answered in negative. 42. In view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79 CT: BHK