- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1919 OF 2016 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED YUSUFF S/O. ABDUL KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. MOHAMMED SAMIULLA S/O. ABDUL KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MOHAMMED MUBARAK S/O. ABDUL KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. MUNNA S/O. ABDUL KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NEAR AUTO WORKS, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 D. RAJAGOPALA ROAD, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 094. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KEMPANNA., ADV.) AND: 1. T. RANGASWAMY S/O. LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. T. S. NARAYANAIAH S/O. LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O. LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 4. BHOJAIAH S/O. LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 5. T. S. ARUN KUMAR S/O. LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANADAPALYA, HAMLET OF TAVAREKERE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT572113 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.ARAVIND BABU, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5) RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.8.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.247/2006 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.4.2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.843/1993 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, TUMKUR, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2016 passed in R.A.No.247/2006 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, and the judgement and decree dated 20.04.2002 passed in O.S.No.843/1993 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Tumkuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract. It is the case of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 plaintiffs that, Kareem Sab and his wife Shahajad were the joint owners of the suit schedule properties and they agreed to sell the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs’ mother, for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly, the defendants have received a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards the earnest money and put the mother of the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule properties by executing the agreement of sale dated 14.02.1986. It is contended that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed and after removal of the obstruction of Fragmentation Act. The mother of the plaintiffs was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till her death from the date of sale agreement. After her demise, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiffs were/are ready and willing to perform their part of a contract however Kareem Sab and his wife did not perform their part of contract. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 15.09.1993 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 calling upon the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute a registered sale deed. The defendants replied to the legal notice denying the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of Rs.8,000/- for the advance sale consideration amount. Thus, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement, and other defendants filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.2. 3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is also denied that Kareem Sab and his wife had agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff’s mother on 14.02.1986 by executing sale agreement, and also denied that they have received the earnest money of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 Rs.8,000/-, and also denied regarding the delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff’s mother. It is contended that the plaintiffs have created the sale agreement and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, it is contended that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file a suit for specific performance of contract. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the relevant issues. 3.4. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. In rebuttal, Munna was examined as DW.1, defendant No.3 was examined as DW.2, examined one witness as DW.3 and marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 20.04.2002 and directed defendant Nos.2 to 6 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit schedule properties after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,000/- within 3 months from the date of passing the judgment. 3.5. Defendant Nos.3, 5, 6 and Munna, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.843/1993, preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 247/2006 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2016. 3.7. Defendant No.3, 5, 6 and Munna, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.3, 5, 6 and Munna. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that, the mother of the plaintiffs created the alleged agreement of sale. He submits that Kareem Sab, and his wife never agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiff's mother, and they have not received any sale consideration amount as alleged in the agreement of sale. He also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not arrayed the wife of the deceased Kareem Sab as party in the suit. He submits that the deceased Kareem Sab died, however the plaintiffs have not brought the legal representatives of the deceased Kareem Sab. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is abated. The said aspect was not considered by the Courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he pray to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that Kareem Sab and his wife were the owners of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs, to prove that they have agreed to sell the suit schedule property, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove that Kareem Sab and his wife had executed the sale agreement, produced a copy of the original agreement of sale marked as Ex.P1, Exs.P2 to P9 are the RTC extracts, Ex.P10 is the mutation register extract, Ex.P11 is the copy of legal notice, which discloses that the plaintiffs are/were ready and willing to perform their part of a contract, wherein they issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to receive the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Exs.P12 to P14 are the postal acknowledgements. The defendants replied to the legal notice marked as Ex.P15. The plaintiff also examined the witnesses as PW2 to PW4, who are the attesting witnesses and scribe to Ex.P1 respectively. They have deposed that Kareem Sab and his wife agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly, they have received Rs.8,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount, and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, and the sale deed to be registered after the repealing of Fragmentation Act. 8. In rebuttal, Munna was examined as DW.1, who is the son of defendant No.1, and he reiterated the written statement averments filed by defendant No.2. To prove the defence of the defendants, they have produced the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D8. Defendant No.3 was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 examined as DW.2, who has deposed in the same line of DW.1 and they also examined Abdul Karim as DW.3. The witnesses have deposed that the Kareem sab and his wife never agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff's mother. 9. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the plaintiffs have produced the original agreement of sale executed by Kareem Sab and his wife in favour of plaintiff’s mother. The summons was issued to defendant No.1, but he did not participate in the suit, and he has not filed any written statement denying the execution of sale agreement in favour of the mother of plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW.2, who has deposed that he has no documents to establish his possession over the suit properties. 10. The First Appellate Court has extracted the portion of the deposition of DW.1 in para 18 of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 judgment of the first appellate court. From the perusal of the cross-examination of DW.1, it is clear that DW.1 has no knowledge about the transaction entered between the plaintiff’s mother, his father and mother. If really Abdul Kareem Sab had not executed the sale agreement, the defendants would have taken any steps to refer the signature appearing on Ex.P1 to the handwriting expert. However, the defendants have not taken such steps. The plaintiffs have produced the agreement of sale at Ex.P1 and also examined the attesting witnesses have proved that defendant No.1 and his wife have executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff’s mother and she was put in possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs, to prove that they are/were ready and willing to perform their part of contract, have issued a legal notice marked as Ex.P11, by producing Ex.P11. A perusal of the same disclosed that the plaintiffs are/were ready and willing to perform their part of a contract. On the other hand, the defendants have failed to establish that the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 plaintiffs have created the sale agreement and they have not received the advance consideration amount of Rs.8,000/- from the plaintiff’s mother. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded the finding of facts against the defendants. Both the courts below have rightly appreciated and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, and any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:774 RSA No. 1919 of 2016 iv. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are ready to pay additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The submission is placed on record. The plaintiffs are directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- before the trial Court within three weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgement. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB