- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2021 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DEVAMBHA W/O LATE BHAVANISHANKAR, AGED 61 YEARS, 2. SMT. M.B CHAITHRA D/O LATE BHAVANISHANKAR, AGED 40 YEARS, 3. MADHUKESHWAR S/O LATE BHAVANISHANKAR, AGED 37 YEARS, 4. KUM KRUPASHANKARI W/O LATE BHAVANISHANKAR, AGED 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 980, CHAMUNDESHWARI NILAYA, 13TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE 570018 (THIS ADDRESS WRONGLY SHOWN BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT) RESIDING AT NO. 1037/1, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL ROAD, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE - 570 008 (CORRECT ADDRESS OF APPELLANTS) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. N.S PRASAD S/O LATE N NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, 8TH BLOCK, II STAGE, SRINIVASPURA, SBM COLONY, MYSORE CITY …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N. NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.No.121/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 2. Defendants in O.S.No.121/2016 are before this Court in this appeal. 3. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Hunsur, (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") has decreed the suit in O.S.No.121/2016 with costs vide judgment dated 01.01.2018 in the following terms: "(i) The defendants are directed to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the concerned sub-registrar's office by receiving balance consideration amount and providing necessary documents as agreed in the agreement to sell and hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. (ii) If the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through the agency of the court." 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 5. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The suit in O.S. No.121/2016 was filed by the plaintiff for relief of specific performance of contract against the defendants - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 directing him to execute an absolute Sale Deed in his favour in respect of land bearing Sy.No.109/P12 measuring in all 7 acre 39-1/2 guntas situated at Chamalli Village, Hampapura Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysuru District (hereinafter referred to as "the suit schedule property", for short) and such other relief. 6. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the husband of the 1st defendant was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, who intended to sell the suit schedule property for his legal necessities for sale consideration amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and executed an Agreement for Sale in favour of the plaintiff on 12.09.2013, which was registered at the Sub-registrar office. While execution of Agreement for Sale, by oversight, the survey number was mentioned as 190/P-12 instead of mentioning Sy.109/P12, which was only a typographical error. The husband of the 1st defendant received advance sale consideration amount of Rs.15,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to receive remaining balance consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- at the time of registering the Sale Deed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 7. Though the plaintiff requested the husband of the 1st defendant for execution of Sale Deed, for one or the other reason, he evaded the execution. Since the husband of the 1st defendant was suffering from serious disease, the plaintiff has not only requested him but also the defendants to execute the regular Sale Deed. In the meanwhile, the husband of the 1st defendant passed away. Even after his death, the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute a regular Sale Deed. Since the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff issued the legal notice on 19.08.2016 to the defendants, which was duly served on defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Inspite of service of notice, the defendants neither complied with the notice nor replied to the same. Thus, the plaintiff has not violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and it is defendants and the husband of the 1st defendant, who had violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale. As such, left with no other option, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 8. Inspite of service of suit summons, the defendants have not chosen to appear before the Court. As such, they have been placed exparte. 9. The Trial Court, thereafter, recorded the evidence on the issues framed. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has passed the judgment and decree as stated supra. 10. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants are before this Court in this appeal. 11. We have heard Sri Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri N.Nanjundaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the records placed before us. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the Trial Court has erred while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff without extending an opportunity to the defendants to contest the matter. According to him, the plaintiff intentionally to avoid notice to the defendants - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 described the address of the defendants in the plaint as "No.980, Chamundeshwari Nilaya, 13th Cross, 11th Main Road, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysuru-570 008, knowing fully the defendants were residing at No.1037/1, Saarvajanika Hostel Road, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysuru - 570 008. Even in the Agreement for Sale dated 12.09.2013 also the correct address of the defendants is mentioned. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that the plaintiff intentionally kept the defendants in dark and obtained a decree of specific performance. He contends that the impugned decree has far reaching civil consequences and since the defendants have valuable defence in the suit, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the defendants to contest the suit on merits. As such, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that though sufficient opportunity has been provided to the defendants before the Trial Court by serving notice to the defendants, they failed to contest the suit. Hence, the defendants were placed exparte. In such circumstances, the Trial Court, after careful examination - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 of the materials produced before it, has rightly passed impugned judgment and decree, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants, the only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether defendants deserve to be provided with an opportunity to contest the suit on merits? 15. It is not in dispute that the notices issued in the suit to the defendants were not served since the defendants were residing in different address. The said aspect is clarified by perusal of the Agreement for Sale and the cause title of the plaint. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to explain as to why he has not shown the address of the defendants as shown in the Agreement for Sale. Having regard to the relief sought for in the suit, which had far reaching consequences, we are of the view that the defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 16. Consequently, the point for determination raised by this Court is held in favour of the appellants/defendants. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.01.2018 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.121/2016 is set aside. iii. The suit is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. iv. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 15.09.2025 without expecting any further notice from the Trial Court. v. If the Trial Court considers that any fresh issue arises, it may frame issues and thereafter record the evidence of the parties. vi. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the suit as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. vii. The amount deposited by the appellants before this Court by virtue of the order dated 06.04.2021 shall be transferred to the concerned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32408-DB RFA No. 124 of 2021 Trial Court, which shall be kept in a interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank, till the disposal of the suit. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records forthwith to the concerned Trial Court along with the certified copy of this judgment. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4