- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2316 OF 2025 (SP/DE/IN) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.KOMALA D/O RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. SMT.SUMALATHA D/O RAMAKKA AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS SL NOS.1 AND 2 ARE ALL RESIDING AT KUDURU VILLAGE AND HOBLI MAGADI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561101 BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI.YOGANAND @ ANAND S/O LATE MANSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF DEVARAYAPATTANA ROAD BEHIND APMC YARD BATWADI, KUVEMPUNAGAR TUMKUR - 572 103 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 AND: SRI.SIDDALINGADEVARU S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT SOMPURA VILLAGE SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 111 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.86/2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 on an assumption that their counter claim is rejected, which amounts to a decree. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, drawing attention to the prayer sought in the written statement filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 defendants and the order sheet of the Trial Court passed on I.A.No.4, would submit that in the absence of a validly instituted counter-claim, the defendants cannot be permitted to maintain the present appeal on the premise that the counter claim stood rejected. It is contended that technically and legally, no counter-claim came into existence and therefore, no appeal would lie against a non-existent decree. 3. This Court, having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and upon anxious consideration of the order passed by the Court of first instance on I.A.No.4, finds considerable force in the said submission. It is trite that a counter-claim, once properly instituted and upon payment of requisite court fee, assumes the character of an independent suit and the defendants assume the status of a plaintiff insofar as the counter- claim is concerned. However, despite the opportunity granted by the Trial Court and the directions issued while disposing of I.A.No.4, the defendants failed to comply with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 the requirement of payment of court fee and consequently, the learned Trial Judge was justified in not adjudicating the declaratory relief sought by way of counter-claim. 4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the defendants, even otherwise, had raised a specific defence in the written statement contending that the agreement of sale dated 20.06.2023 was executed only as a security for a loan transaction. This crucial plea was duly considered by the Trial Court, which framed Additional Issue No.1 specifically addressing the said defence. 5. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge answered Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative and proceeded to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff. The findings recorded on Additional Issues Nos.1 and 2 form part of the judgment rendered in the plaintiff’s suit. In the absence of any decree having been drawn on the counter- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 claim, the defendants cannot maintain an independent appeal on the alleged rejection of such counter-claim. However, if the defendants are aggrieved by the findings recorded on the additional issues, it is always open to them to challenge the same in a properly constituted appeal against the decree including by invoking the enabling jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the circumstances so warrant. 6. In the present case, admittedly, no decree has been passed on any counter-claim, the same having not been brought on record for want of payment of court fee. The decree impugned herein is solely referable to the plaint presented by the plaintiff in O.S.No.86/2016. Therefore, the present appeal, which proceeds on the erroneous assumption that a counter-claim has been adjudicated and rejected, is wholly misconceived and not maintainable in law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2644 RFA No. 2316 of 2025 7. It is also not in dispute that the defendants have already availed the statutory remedy by preferring RFA No.2317/2025, wherein they are at liberty to assail the findings recorded by the Trial Court on all issues including Additional Issues Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the present appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The appellants–defendants shall, however, be at liberty to urge all permissible grounds in the pending regular first appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0