- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2017 (MON) BETWEEN: 1. JAIN HEIGHTS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT , 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SOLUS, 11TH FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, J C ROAD, OPPOSITE JAIN COLLEGE, BANGALORE 560027 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR KISHORE KUMAR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. BASAVANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT HOME, TALLURU ROAD, PARVATI NAGAR, BELLARY 583103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S SAPPANNAVAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.8005/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Regular First appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed in Original Suit No.8005/2013 by the XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was a money suit claiming recovery of Rs.16,63,200/- from the defendant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 4. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Joint Development Agreement in respect of Property No.2, Old No. 9/A, No.8/9, No.23, PID No.48-74-2 situated at 1st Cross, J.C.Road, Municipal Ward No.47, Bengaluru. The property consists of 35,000 square feet land. The defendant has undertaken the construction of commercial complex consisting of several office spaces. Under the Joint Development Agreement, the plaintiff agreed to construct commercial office space known as "G4" for a total sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- and a tripartite agreement dated 15.09.2009 was entered into between the plaintiff, defendant and the original owners of the said property. The plaintiff had paid the total sale consideration of Rs.72,00,000/- to the defendant by way of part payments through RTGS. But after completion of the construction of the commercial complex and before the plaintiff could occupy, the defendant offered a proposal to the plaintiff that the said commercial space purchased by the plaintiff can be sold to a third party for a better price of Rs.1,15,98,240-/ and the said transaction would yield profit of Rs.43,98,240/-. The plaintiff, looking at the profit margin, gave - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 consent for selling of the office space bought by him from the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,15,98,240/-. 5. It appears that in the sale deed, the amount was mentioned as only Rs.99,35,040/-. The excess payment of Rs.16,63,200/- was not mentioned in the sale deed. However, the defendant, in his e-mails in Ex.P9 and Ex.P10, admitted payment of Rs.16,63,200/- to the plaintiff. The defendant has paid Rs.99,35,040/-. When the defendant failed to make the payment of Rs.16,63,200/-, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court: "i. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant agreed to sell the suit properties on 15.09.2009 for Rs.72,00,000/- and subsequently offered to sell the suit property to third party for Rs.1,15,98,240/- and assured to give the profit of Rs.43,98,240/- by altering the terms of contract under agreement dated 15.09.2009? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 ii. Whether he further proves that defendant failed to pay the balance amount inspite of request demands and issuance of legal notice dated 29.08.2013 and that defendant is liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.16,63,200/- with interest at 18% p.a.,?" 7. On the basis of the documents particularly the e-mails written by the defendant himself intimating the plaintiff regarding the total sale consideration of the property in question, the Trial Court has decreed the suit for Rs.16,63,200/-. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has submitted that the plaintiff would be entitled for the amount which is mentioned in the sale deed and he would not be entitled for any other amount. The submission is that even if the appellant/defendant has admitted the total sale consideration for the property in question to be Rs.1,15,98,240/-, as the sale deed mentions the sale consideration only for Rs.99,35,040/- and if the defendant has paid more than Rs.99,35,040/-, the plaintiff is not entitled for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 Rs.16,63,200/-. He submits that the sale consideration is only the one which is mentioned in the sale deed. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had given consent for the sale of commercial space for Rs.1,15,98,240/-. On this, the defendant has written two communications to the plaintiff. If the amount of consideration is mentioned less in the sale deed, that would not mean that the plaintiff has given consent for sale of his property for Rs.99,35,040/-. There is no communication by the plaintiff that he has agreed to sell the property for Rs.99,35,040/-. The understanding between the parties was that the plaintiff has agreed to sell his property for Rs.1,15,98,240/- and this fact has been admitted by the defendant and now, the defendant cannot resile from the aforesaid admission. 11. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, we pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 insofar as the interest granted on Rs.16,63,200/- is modified. iii. The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.16,63,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. iv. In compliance of the interim order dated 03.02.2017 passed by this Court to deposit 50% of the decretal amount, a sum of Rs.11,45,000/- has been deposited by the appellant/defendant before this Court. The said amount along with accrued interest shall be released in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on proper verification. v. The appellant/defendant would be liable to pay the balance 50% of the decretal amount i.e. Rs.11,45,000/- with accrued interest thereon. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9473-DB RFA No. 125 of 2017 vi. The defendant should deposit the balance amount with the Trial Court within a period of eight weeks. vii. No costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48