- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1366 OF 2016 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1365 OF 2016 IN RSA NO.1366/2016 BETWEEN: SMT. S. VAIDEHI W/O LATE G.A. RATHANGOPANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MARAPPANAHALLI DINNE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. ALSO AT NO.35,7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA B., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHOBA W/O SUJITH MUKUND, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT COLONS NEST, PLOT NO.301, 2ND FLOOR, REHINUS STREET, LONGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 …RESPONDENT (V/O DATED 23.11.2016, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RESPONDENT - HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02ND JUNE, 2016 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.40 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22ND JUNE, 2011 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.104 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHIKKABALLAPUR. IN RSA NO.1365/2016 BETWEEN: SMT. S. VAIDEHI W/O LATE G.A. RATHANGOPANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MARAPPANAHALLI DINNE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. ALSO AT NO.35,7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA B., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHOBA W/O SUJITH MUKUND, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT COLONS NEST, PLOT NO.301, 2ND FLOOR, REHINUS STREET, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 LONGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025. …RESPONDENT (SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02ND JUNE, 2016 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.39 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22ND JUNE, 2011 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.27 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHIKKABALLAPUR. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT Regular Second Appeal No.1366 of 2016 is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 02nd June, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.40 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapura (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.104 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Chikkaballapura (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 2. Regular Second Appeal No.1365 of 2016 is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 02nd June, 2016 passed in Regular Appeal No.39 of 2011 on the file of the First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.27 of 1996 on the file Trial Court, wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed. 3. It is the case of the appellant-Smt. S. Vaidehi that, she had entered into an agreement of Sale dated 19th October, 1994 to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, appellant had received Rs.1,00,000/- as part sale consideration from the respondent on the date of Agreement. It is also stated in the plaint that the appellant delivered possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent, however, she has not completed the transaction with regard to execution of the registered Sale Deed and as such, the respondent had issued demand notice dated 09th January, 1996 to the appellant herein, calling upon the appellant to execute the registered Sale Deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 for having received the sum of Rs.3,37,851/- through cheque as well as by way of cash. 4. It is stated by the respondent that the respondent had cleared the loan account of the appellant herein in P.L.D. Bank at Chikkaballapura as well as the loan borrowed from one Hanumanthappa under an agreement of settlement and therefore, the respondent herein has filed Original Suit No.27 of 1996, seeking relief of specific performance of contract. On the other hand, the appellant herein had filed Original Suit No.104 of 2002 against the respondent herein, seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court, clubbed both the suits in Original Suit No.27 of 1996 and Original Suit No.104 of 2002 and framed issues for its consideration as per paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment. 5. In order the prove their case, respondent examined 6 witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and marked 58 documents as Exhibits P1 to P58. On the other hand, appellant examined 3 witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and marked 22 documents as Exhibits D1 to D22. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 6. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2011, decreed the suit of the respondent herein in Original Suit No.27 of 1996 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein in Original Suit No.104 of 2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Regular Appeal Nos.39 of 2011 and 40 of 2011 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondent. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 02nd June, 2016, dismissed the appeals consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2011 passed in Original Suit Nos.27 of 1996 and 104 of 2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred these two appeals. 7. This Court, by order dated 15th November, 2024 formulated the following substantial questions of law: In RSA No.1366/2016 "Whether both Courts are justified in holding that defendant was put in possession of suit schedule property under agreement to sell dated 19.10.1994 executed by plaintiff and settlement deed dated 25.11.1994 executed by one Sri. Hanumanthappa?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 In RSA No.1365/2016 "Whether both Courts are justified in holding that plaintiff was read and willing to perform her part of contract as per requirement of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963?"." 8. Heard Sri. Shekarappa B., learned counsel appearing for the appellant an Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Sri. Shekarappa B., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent herein has committed breach of agreement dated 19th October, 1994 and further, both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the respondent herein has not proved the agreement of sale dated 19th October, 1994. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent herein has examined PW1 and PW2 as witnesses to the Exibit-P2 and therefore, finding recorded by the Courts below is required to be confirmed in these appeals as the appellant delivered the possession in respect of the suit schedule property to the respondent as on the date of the Agreement of Sale dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 19th October, 1994. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the appellant herein has executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of one Y.A. Sudhakar Babu and therefore, the claim made by the appellant herein does not survive for consideration. 11. In reply to the same, learned counsel Sri. Shekarappa B., appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein filed Original Suit No.686 of 2023 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkaballapura against the said Y.A. Sudhakar Babu and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court in these appeals. 12. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the parties have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 19th October, 1994 (Exhibit-P2) and the appellant had received Rs.2,95,351/- toward part sale consideration. It is also forthcoming that the respondent has cleared the loan account of the appellant herein in P.L.D. Bank, Chikkaballapur and that apart, the finding has been recorded that the respondent herein has paid to one Hanumanthappa in respect of the loan account. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 In order to prove the agreement of sale, the respondent examined PW1 and PW2 and the appellant has not disputed the execution of Agreement of Sale in deposition as DW1. 13. It is also to be noted that, as on the date of Agreement of Sale dated 19th October, 1994, portion of the suit schedule property was handed over to the respondent by the appellant. In the backdrop of these aspects, the appellant had sold and executed the subject land as per registered Sale Deed dated 28th December, 2017 during the pendency of these appeals in favour of Y.A. Sudhakarbabu. The said aspect of the mater was not countered by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, it is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant herein has filed Original Suit No.686 of 2023 against the purchaser of the land- Y.A. Sudhakar Babu, challenging the registered Sale Deed dated 28th December, 2017. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding recorded by both the Courts below, rejecting the claim made by the appellant herein is just and proper and no interference be called for in these appeals. Accordingly, substantial question of law referred to above - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30576 RSA NO.1366 OF 2016 C/W RSA NO.1365 OF 2016 favours the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the courts below. Hence, the appeals are rejected by confirming the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. However, there is no impediment for proceedings in Original Suit No.686 of 2023 filed by the appellant herein against the purchaser of the suit schedule property i.e., Sri. Y.A. Sudhakar Babu. In the result, Regular Second Appeals are dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52