- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 10175 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI L F PATIL, s/o LATE FAKIR GOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.1606, 4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 087. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIPILLAPPA DEAD BY LRS SMT NAGAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101. 2. KUMARI RAKSHITHA, D/O LATE MUNIPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND THEIR MOTHER SMT NAGAMMA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101. 3. KUMARI RASHMITHA D/O LATE MUNIPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND THEIR MOTHER SMT NAGAMMA, R/AT KOLAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R-2 AND R-3 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R-1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2020 MADE ON EXECUTION PETITION NO.39/2018 PASSED BY COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHICKBALLAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.39/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BY DIRECTING TO CONSIDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 Decree Holder is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.07.2020 passed in Ex.No.39/2018 by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapura vide Annexure-A. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court. 3. Petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.188/2011 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Chickballapura for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. In the said suit, plaintiff had contended that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.80p-3 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Kollavanahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chickballapura for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,60,000/- and earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid under the said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 agreement to the defendant. Seeking refund of the earnest money, plaintiff had approached the Trial Court in O.S.No.188/2011. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing objections. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2017 had decreed the suit. Undisputedly, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.188/2011 has attained finality. Ex.No.39/2018 is filed before the Trial Court by the decree holder for recovery of the money in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.188/2011. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has closed the execution petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.188/2011 dated 27.10.2017 has attained finality. In O.S.No.188/2011, it is held that defendant is liable to refund the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. Since the defendant had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 failed to pay the money in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.188/2011, Ex.No.39/2018 was filed before the Trial Court by the decree holder and in the said proceedings, objections were raised by the judgment debtor stating that since the property in question, which was subject matter of the agreement for sale was granted to the defendant under the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') the agreement itself was void. 5. The Trial Court having appreciated the said aspect of the matter has held that the execution petition was not maintainable. The Trial Court has further observed that defendant Munipillappa had no independent title over the land in question and the decree holder had entered into an agreement for sale on the basis of Form No.1 and grant certificate which do not confer absolute title over the land in question on the judgment debtor. It was further observed that in view of the non-alienation clause found in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 the grant order, the decree holder could not have entered into an agreement with the judgment debtor and therefore the question of refunding earnest money does not arise. 6. In my considered opinion, the said approach of the Executing Court is totally illegal and highly perverse. The Executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree and ought not have recorded finding about the validity of the agreement for sale or otherwise. The suit was filed for recovery of the earnest money paid under the agreement for sale. Section 65 of the Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows: "Section 65: Obligation of person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void - When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 7. Therefore, even if the agreement was void, the defendant who had received advantage under the void agreement was liable to refund the earnest money received by him under such agreement. In the case of SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY VS. SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA - 2020(3) KCCR 1713, this Court having referred to Section 65 of the Contract Act, 1872 has held that a person who has received advantage even under a void agreement or contract is liable to repay the amount paid under such agreement. The Trial Court has completely erred in passing the impugned order and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 23.07.2020 passed in Ex.No.39/2018 by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53578 WP No. 10175 of 2021 Chickballapura vide Annexure-A is set aside and consequently the proceedings in Ex.No.39/2018 stands revived. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26