- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.198 OF 2015 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-571112. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHARA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.S. SUHAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O THOTADASALU BEHIND KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-571112. 2. SMT. SIDDALAKSHMAMMA W/O RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT A.M. PALYA SIRA GATE TUMKUR - 571112. 3. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O RANGANATH Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED MAJOR R/AT GULAHARIVA GOLUR HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571112. 4. SRI. JAGADEESH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NEAR KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 571112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 10.12.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.46/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.140/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 passed in RA.No.46 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 passed in OS.No.140 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Gubbi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint, is that he and the defendant’s father-Narasimhaiah, entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2000, whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.30,000/- as advance sale consideration. As per the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed to execute a registered sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 deed within three years from the date of execution of the agreement. The plaintiff has averred that the defendant’s father passed away on 09.09.2002, and subsequently, the defendant attempted to alienate the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claims that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, filed a suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2005, seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2000. 4. After service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. It was specifically contended by the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The defendant, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 05 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, defendant examined 02 witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.D1 to D20. 7. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.46 of 2010 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS.No.140 of 2005. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 8. I have heard Sri. H.N. Shashidhara, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri. H.S. Suhas, for the appellant and Sri. Krishna S. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Sri. H. N. Shashidahar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that both courts below erred in their interpretation of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement dated 10.10.2000. It was contended that, the Trial Court had categorically held under Issue No. 3 that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. He contended that, since the defendant did not challenge this finding, it attained finality. The execution of the Agreement of Sale (Ex.P1) was proved through oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of PW2 and PW3. The plaintiff issued a legal notice (Ex. P2) dated 27.09.2005, demanding execution of the sale deed. The defendant issued an evasive reply (Ex. P4), denying the agreement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the concurrent findings on readiness and willingness were perverse and called for interference by this Court. 10. Sri. Krishna S. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent supported the concurrent findings of both courts below and argued that, the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement. There was no valid explanation for the plaintiff’s inaction between 2000 and 2005. Therefore, such concurrent findings cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, it is not in dispute that the defendant’s father was owner of the suit schedule property and had entered into the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2000 (Ex. P1) with the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-, of which Rs.30,000/- was paid in advance. In order to prove Ex.P1 the plaintiff has examined the witness to the said agreement and therefore, the finding recorded by the both the courts below with regard to execution of Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2000 is to be accepted. It is also to be noted that, the agreement was entered into between the parties on 10.10.2000 however, suit was filed on 23.06.2006 and that apart, the Trial Court had given a finding on issue No.3 on the limitation, stating that the suit is filed in time. In the backdrop of these aspects on careful examination of compliance of Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act where the finding recorded by both the courts below would indicate that, though the Agreement of Sale entered into between the parties on 10.10.2000 and the legal notice at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 was issued on 27.09.2005, wherein the plaintiff has called upon the defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed. The said notice at Ex.P2 has been replied by the defendant as per Ex.P4 denying - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 the execution of the Agreement of Sale. It is also stated in the said notice at Ex.P2 that, plaintiff is ready with the balance of Rs.20,000/- and as such, sought for execution of registered Sale Deed. It is contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, the plaintiff has to prove the readiness and willingness in respect of completion of the Sale Agreement from the date of agreement itself, however, no explanation was offered by the plaintiff for a period of five years and therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent with regard to the same by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Vijay Kumar and Others vs. Om Prakash reported in AIR 2008 SC 5098, wherein it is held that the plaintiff has to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout and establish through oral and documents evidence. In that view of the matter, as the Agreement of Sale was entered into between the parties on 10.10.2000, however, the claim - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29913 RSA No. 198 of 2015 made by the plaintiff, seeking execution of the Agreement of Sale as per notice dated 27.09.2005 (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3), I am of the view that, finding recorded by both the courts below on Section 16(c), of the Specific Relief Act is just and proper. Therefore, I do not find material irregularity or perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Since, the plaintiff/appellant has not made out grounds for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the Admission stage itself. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44