- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.96 OF 2026 IN R.S.A.No.407/2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. T. BALUNAYAKA S/O THOLASI NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.181/1-A 6TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK THYAGARAJANAGAR BENGALURU-560 028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P. DEVANNA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. CHINTHAMANI W/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT GEJJALANATHA (RAMAPURA) HANUURU TALUK-571 313. 2. SMT. USHARANI D/O LATE P. DEVANNA W/O SELVARAJ Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.59, 3RD CROSS STREET THIRUMURUGAN NAGAR, VADAVALLI COIMBATORE NORTH COIMBATORE DISTRICT-641041 TAMIL NADU STATE. 3. SRI. SACCHIDANANDA S/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SRI. PANCHAKSHARI S/O LATE P. DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF RAMAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNITHA P.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2025 PASSED IN RSA NO.407/2024 (SP) AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE RSA NO.407/2024 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2023 IN R.A.NO.5005/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMRAJANAGARA (SITTING AT KOLLEGAL) AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2016 IN O.S.NO.7/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT KOLLEGALA AND GRANT THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 26.06.2008 BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER UPON RECEIPT OF BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for review petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This Court vide judgment dated 11.12.2025 when the matter was listed for admission, disposed of R.S.A.No.407/2024 in coming to the conclusion that both the Courts have not committed any error. However, this Court comes to the conclusion that interest awarded at 6% per annum by the First Appellate Court is erroneous and in the second appeal, it is appropriate to direct the defendants/respondents to pay the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court with interest at 12% per annum from the date of judgment and decree dated 23.03.2016 as ordered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.7/2011 and comes to the conclusion that it is not a case for granting the relief of specific performance as contented by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This Court also made an observation that both the Courts have taken note of the recital in the sale agreement and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 explicit contract between the parties that in case of any breach, double the amount of consideration is to be paid. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, the present review petition is filed before this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of review petitioner would vehemently contend that this Court while considering the recital in the agreement providing for refund of double the earnest money in case of default may kindly consider whether such a clause was intended only as a safeguard for performance and not as an exclusion of the equitable relief of specific performance, particularly when the petitioner has established readiness and willingness. With utmost respect, the existence of such a clause does not by itself exclude or bar the equitable relief of specific performance, unless the contract expressly makes refund of the exclusive remedy. The agreement dated 26.06.2008 does not stipulate the payment of double the advance amount would substitute performance or extinguish the right to seek specific performance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 4. The second limb of argument before this Court in the review position by the Senior counsel is that the judgment under review does not formulate or frame any substantial question of law before proceeding to decide the appeal. The appeal has been disposed of without identifying the substantial question of law arising for consideration. 5. The third limb of argument before this Court is that the review petitioner is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property from the date of agreement and has constructed a residential house and made substantial improvements and developmental works by investing considerable amounts. The effect of such long-standing possession and alteration of position requires reconsideration while balancing the equities. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner in support of his argument relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in R.S.A.NO.170/2023 dated 03.07.2024 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.12, wherein this Court made an observation referring to clause No.10 and that clause itself does not mean that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 parties are not entitled for the relief of specific performance. When the material on record discloses that defendants agreed to sell the property when they were in need of money for the construction of house and when the amount was utilized for construction of house, the court cannot reject the relief of specific performance. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, including clause No.10 of agreement-Ex.P1. Clause No.10 will disentitle the plaintiff to get the relief of specific performance which is one of the remedy alternatively given to the plaintiff. 7. Learned Senior counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO.17321/2017 in KAMAL KANT JAIN VS. SURINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS. and brought to notice of this Court page No.11 of the judgment, wherein discussion was made referring the judgment in MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA reported in 2010 (10) SCC 512, wherein paragraph No.28 of the particular judgment is referred and an observation is made that for a plaintiff to seek - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 specific performance of a contract of sale relating to immovable property, and for a Court to grant such specific performance, it is not necessary that the contract should contain a specific provision that in the event of breach, the aggrieved party will be entitled to specific performance and also an observation is made that where the provision naming an amount to be paid in case of breach is intended to give to the party in default an option to pay money in lieu of specific performance, then specific performance may not be permissible. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would vehemently contend that this Court modified the judgment of the First Appellate Court only with regard to payment of interest at 6% per annum is concerned considering that the Trial Court directed to pay the amount with interest at 12% per annum and the same has been set right by this Court while disposing of the second appeal at the time of admission. The counsel would submit that though it is mentioned in the judgment that matter is listed for final hearing in page No.2, but in paragraph No.1 made it clear that heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 counsel for the respondents and taken note of the fact that appeal was not admitted and taken note of factual aspects of the case and particularly, taken note of contract between the parties i.e., clause in the agreement dated 26.06.2008 and in paragraph No.5, considered the grounds which have been urged by the appellant during the course of argument and in view of modification also, complied the order passed by this Court by depositing the amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 9. The counsel also would submit that while seeking review, there must be an error apparent on the face of record and no ground is made out by the review petitioner that there was error apparent on the part of this Court while disposing of the appeal and when no such error apparent on record, question of invoking review jurisdiction does not arise. The counsel also would submit that in the absence of any such mistake, question of entertaining the review does not arise. The counsel would further submit that though there was a mistake in mentioning that matter was listed for final hearing, but the matter was disposed of at the time of admission and hence, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 question of framing substantial question of law does not arise. Hence, no ground is made out to review the order. 10. Having heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra of the Apex Court as well as the judgment of this Court in R.S.A.NO.170/2023 which was dismissed at the time of admission that there was a relief of specific performance granted and the same is confirmed by the Trial Court and also considering the grounds which have been urged before this Court, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the review petitioner has made out the ground to invoke Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC to review the order passed by this Court? (ii) What order? Point No.(i) 11. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the review petition, the first limb of argument by learned Senior counsel appearing for review petitioner is that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 this Court passed an order considering existence of such a clause does not by itself exclude or bar the equitable relief of specific performance, unless the contract expressly makes refund the exclusive remedy. But, in the case on hand, no doubt, there is a recital in the agreement dated 26.06.2008, in case of any breach, there is an express recital to award double the amount of earnest money which was paid and in the case on hand, admittedly, the amount was paid only to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. But, the Trial Court passed an order to pay the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- i.e., double the amount. 12. It is also important to note that this Court has taken note of reducing the interest at 6% by the First Appellate Court and the same is set right by this Court while dismissing the second appeal at the time of admission. No doubt, this Court in R.S.A.No.170/2023 considered the factual aspects particularly, the said second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding, wherein specific performance was granted. Hence, this Court found that no ground is made out to interfere and admit the second appeal. No doubt, in paragraph No.12 made an observation with regard to clause No.10 and that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 said clause does not mean that the plaintiff has to seek the alternative remedy for refund of the amount and entitled for specific performance, the Court has to take note of facts and circumstances of each case. 13. This Court in R.S.A.NO.170/2023 in paragraph No.3 taken note that there was an agreement dated 03.04.2000 and on the very date of sale agreement, the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,55,000/- was paid and the same was taken note of in coming to such a conclusion. In the case on hand, though an attempt is made by the review petitioner before the Trial Court setting up a defence that entire amount has been paid and an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid, the same was not substantiated by producing any document before the Court and entire consideration was not paid. The Trial Court has also taken note that a false ground was taken that entire amount was paid as sale consideration and concurrent finding is given by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that no such additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid. Taking note of factual aspects of the case and also the grounds which have been urged, this order - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 will not come to the rescue of the appellant considering the factual aspects of the case. 14. No doubt, the counsel relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KAMAL KANT JAIN’s case referred supra, the Apex Court in page No.11 relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA reported in 2010 (10) SCC 512 and paragraph No.28 of the said judgment is extracted, wherein it is made clear that for a plaintiff to seek specific performance of a contract of sale relating to immovable property, and for a Court to grant such specific performance, it is not necessary that the contract should contain a specific provision that in the event of breach, the aggrieved party will be entitled to specific performance. 15. No doubt, in the case on hand also recitals of the agreement is very clear that in case of breach, double the amount is to be paid. Accordingly, the Trial Court considered the same and the First Appellate Court modified the same by reducing the interest. In the judgment of the Apex Court in MAN KAUR’s case in paragraph No.28, the Apex Court made - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 an observation that where the provision naming an amount to be paid in case of breach is intended to give to the party in default an option to pay money in lieu of specific performance, then specific performance may not be permissible. This observation also goes against the review petitioner and in case any specific provision is made in the agreement, in case of breach is intended to give to the party in default an option to pay money in lieu of specific performance, then specific performance may not be permissible. When such observation is made, I do not find any ground to come to an other conclusion. 16. The second limb of argument is that no substantial question of law is framed. It is settled law that in case if Court comes to the conclusion that matter requires reconsideration, then only, the Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law and no need to frame any substantial question of law, while considering the matter at the time of admission and the second limb of argument also cannot be accepted and though there is a typographical error that matter has come up for final hearing, but the same has not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 come up for final hearing, but its only for admission. Hence, the said argument also cannot be accepted. 17. The third limb of argument is that review petitioner has constructed residential house and he is in possession of the property. No doubt, in terms of the agreement, possession is delivered, but there is a express recital that in case of any default and commits any breach of the terms of agreement, there was a contractual agreement between the parties to make double the payment of earnest money and the same was paid and for that reason itself, the recital was made in the agreement. When such being the case, the very contention of counsel cannot be accepted and I do not find any ground to entertain the review petition and there is no error apparent on the part of this Court while disposing of the second appeal during admission in considering the material on record and the same is also not pointed out by the counsel appearing for the review petitioner. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the review petition in the absence of any error apparent on record and no ground is made out to review the order passed by this Court. Therefore, I answer point No.(i) as ‘negative’ - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25692 RP No. 96 of 2026 Point No.(ii) 18. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64