- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1324 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M NATARAJAIAH S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT ABBANI VILLAGE, HARATI POST, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH B N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI T NARAYANASWAMY S/O THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT ABBANI VILLAGE, HARATI POST, HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHREERAM T NAYAK.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.31/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2023 Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 PASSED IN OS NO.200/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2024 passed in RA.No.31/2023 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2023 passed in OS.No.200/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of brevity. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for the relief of the specific performance of the contract by contending that defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, and on 04.09.2015, an agreement was entered for the sale of the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- which was executed before the attested witnesses. The defendant has received Rs.2,00,000/- and the defendant agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- and thereafter execute the registered sale deed within a period of 6 months in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had undertaken that he would secure all title deeds and execute the sale deed within the time stipulated by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. 5. It is further say of the plaintiff that on 20.02.2016, the plaintiff approached the defendant with a balance sale consideration amount of Rs.25,000/- and demanded him to execute the sale deed as per the terms - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 of the sale agreement. However, the defendant intentionally refused to perform his part of the contract. Due to which, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 25.02.2016 demanding the defendant to perform his part of the contract by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. Instead of complying with the notice sent, a reply was sent by the defendant through his counsel on 11.03.2016, admitting about the execution of the document, but has taken a false defence that the transaction which has taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant is a money lending transaction and that the agreement of sale is a nominal document which was executed for collateral security purpose. In view of non- compliance of the legal notice and registration of the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against the defendant. 6. Upon summons being served, the defendant appeared before the Court, filed written statement, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 denied the contentions of the plaintiff and took up the plea that the agreement so alleged is an insufficiently stamped document and that document cannot be relied upon. It is also pleaded in the written statement that the property bearing No.81/3 is within 5 kilometers distance from Kolar City and its market value is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The sub registrar value is more than Rs.6,00,000/- per acre and Rs.12,00,000/- for the entire suit schedule property. Further the defendant has grown eucalyptus trees, they are worth more than Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contended that the defendant had obtained a hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and has signed on the back side of a blank stamp paper and that the alleged witnesses and scribe have colluded with the plaintiff and have concocted and created a false document and filed a suit to make an unlawful gain from the defendant. 7. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 04.09.2015 in favour of the plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving part sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 3. Whether the defendant proves that alleged agreement of sale dated 04.09.2015 is created one? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for? Additional Issue No.1 dated 05.12.2022. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves the he is entitled for the relief of Specific Performance as sought for? 2. What order or decree? 8. In order to substantiate the issues and prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and also examined two witnesses. PW2 was a signatory to the sale agreement, and PW3 scribe of the said agreement of sale. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 the documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. On the basis of the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, the trial Court examined the materials placed on record, did not agree with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, agreed with the contentions and the documents produced by the defendant, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, and directed the parties to bear their own costs by holding that the plaintiff has not proved the agreement of sale and the transactions. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in RA No.31/2023. The first appellate Court issued summons to the defendant who appeared and contested the matter. He took the very same defence and sought for dismissal of the appeal by contending that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 10. The first appellate Court upon reconsideration and reanalysation of the entire materials placed before the trial Court and the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for both parties, including the judgment and decree of the trial Court, formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of agreement of sale, dated 04.09.2015 as contended by him? 2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has not proved his ready and willingness to perform contract? 3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract? 4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court warranting the interference by this Court? 5. What order or decree? 11. The first appellate Court upon re-looking at the entire materials placed by the parties and the evidence adduced, as well as the arguments put forth by both - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 counsels, and on scrutinizing once again, did not find favour with the appellant/plaintiff so also did not find any illegality or error committed by the trial Court and hence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is these two concurrent finding of fact in favour of the defendant that have led the appellant/plaintiff to approach this Court in second appeal on the following grounds. 12. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the judgments rendered by both the Courts are illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the same deserve to be set aside and reversed by framing substantial questions of law. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that both the Courts have committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the document was a loan transaction document, as no such defence was taken at the initial stage by the defendant. When he replied to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 notice given by the plaintiff, it falsified the subsequent defence taken by the defendant. 13. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that both the Courts have held in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the agreement of sale, despite the fact that the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, PW2, and PW3; one is a witness and the other is the scribe of the document who have stated about the agreement of sale and the same having been executed for the sale of the suit schedule property. 14. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is highly improbable for the defendant to have given a blank signed stamp paper for hand loan for a meager amount of Rs.50,000/-. Even according to the defendant, there was a standing crop worth Rs.3,00,000/- in the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further contends that both the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 Courts have failed to go into the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract and the defendant having evaded the performance of the contract. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff also further contended that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have relied upon the defence taken without any proper basis and have come to a conclusion that the transaction was a loan transaction, and no such explanation is forthcoming in the agreement of sale, which is produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, adverse interference ought to have been drawn by both the Courts in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, based on these submissions, contends that substantial questions of law as urged in the appeal memo requires to be framed for further consideration of the matter. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant vehemently contends that there is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 no illegality or perversity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. It is for the plaintiff who has come before the Court to prove his case without relying upon the weakness of the defendant. He also contends that it is not a sale agreement, as the signature is not properly affixed and it is on a blank paper signature is affixed, which later on has been manipulated and concocted by the plaintiff for misusing it as an agreement of sale. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court and the first appellate Court having gone through these intricacies of the document, which is not properly explained or registered to be an agreement of sale have rightly come to a conclusion to dismiss the case of the plaintiff on the ground that the case of the plaintiff regarding the document styled and relied upon as a sale agreement is created document. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal as no grounds are made out by the appellant/plaintiff to frame substantial questions of law, much less there being any illegality or perversity in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 the concurrent finding of facts rendered by both the Courts. 17. Apparently, it is seen that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract for the agreement of sale wherein the value of the property was claimed to be about Rs.5,50,000/- per acre. The plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property for Rs.2,25,000/- wherein he has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance. The remaining balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. This aspect has been denied by the defendant, contending that it was not a sale transaction and it was a money transaction for a loan of Rs.50,000/- which was taken by him from the plaintiff and the document was signed, which was a blank paper. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff misused it and utilized it and created an agreement of sale. 18. The trial Court, upon carefully examining the document on the basis of the evidence adduced by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 plaintiff's witnesses and that of the defendants, has come to a conclusion that there is no substantial material to show that it is an agreement of sale and has negated the contentions of the plaintiff that the agreement was voluntarily executed by the defendant. Relying upon several judgments that are quoted in the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court not being satisfied with the explanation provided that there was an agreement of sale executed by the defendant for sale of the property which does not tally with the properties mentioned, rejected the claim made for specific performance of the contract and also agreed with the defendant that it was a signature put on a blank signed paper and agreed with the defendant that it was a loan transaction upon which a blank signed paper document was obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant. Accordingly, dismissed the suit. 19. In a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale, it is for the plaintiff to come before the Court and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 establish in a meticulous manner as to how and when the sale transaction took place and how the amount came to be paid. In the present case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently come to a finding of fact, not agreeing with the plaintiff with regard to the agreement of sale having been entered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and it being only a loan transaction, at the most a loan transaction and a blank signed document utilized by the plaintiff. 20. Section 100 of CPC deals with the Scope and powers of the Appellate Court. It is a no more res integra to state that the powers as contemplated under Section 100 CPC are very narrow and limited. This Court, in several catena of judgments, has held that the Appellate Court sitting in the second appeal is not required to appreciate the evidence on record unless there is perversity shown in the judgments rendered by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. When two Courts have already considered the question of fact and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 the question of law to a large extent in detail, even if this Court finds third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general Rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion merely for the sake of interference when there is no cogent material placed on record. 21. In view of the discussions made herein above, the substantial questions of law as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal memo are not questions of law to be framed. The trial Court and the first appellate court have elaborately dealt with these aspects. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason made out by the appellant/plaintiff to frame substantial questions of law as no substantial questions of law exists. Both the Courts have concurrently held on facts, which may not be permissible for this Court to delve into the matter further as it is not sitting as an appellate Court. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24428 RSA No. 1324 of 2024 ORDER The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself as no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35