- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5735 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI RAMESH S/O. SATTEPPA BASTAWADE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JODATTI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE.) AND: SRI PAWADI S/O. BALAPPA HANJE, R/O. JODATTI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1A. SMT. SHARAVVA W/O. PAWADI HANJE, R/O. SATTI VILLAGE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309. SINCE DECEASED, BY RESPONDENT NO.1B. 1B. SRI KALLAPPA S/O. PAWADI HANJE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SATTI VILLAGE, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1(B) IS HELD SUFFICIENT.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2013, PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKODI, IN R.A.NO.141/2012, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2012, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG, IN O.S.NO.224/2008, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013, passed in R.A.No.141/2012, on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), which confirms the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2012, passed in O.S.No.224/2008, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag (for short, ‘Trial Court’), thereby the suit filed for specific performance of contract was dismissed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract by contending that the defendant is owner of the suit schedule property bearing R.S.No.15/4 measuring 01 acre 38 guntas and R.S.No.16/4 measuring 02 acres 23 guntas, both situated at Jodatti village of Raibag taluka, offered the scheduled land for sale and accordingly an agreement of sale was executed on 15.05.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- and advance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was paid. It is stated in the agreement that time is essence of contract. It is further contended by the plaintiff that on second and third time there were two further agreements dated 28.06.2000 and 20.06.2002, by which advance sale consideration amount of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was paid respectively, but the defendant has not come forward - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 to execute the registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint regarding execution of agreement of sale and payment of advance sale consideration amount. The defendant denied execution of agreement of sale specifically. 5. Upon considering the records, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove agreement of sale and also payment of advance sale consideration amount as pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, dismissed the suit. The judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed by the First Appellate Court by upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit and the first appeal, the plaintiff has preferred this second Regular Second Appeal by raising various grounds and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 substantial questions of law, as stated in the memorandum of appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and perused the material placed before the Court. 8. This Court has issued notice to the respondent, but the respondent remained absent and hence, there is no representation for the respondent. 9. Upon considering the plaint averments and the evidence on record, the agreement of sale is dated 15.05.2000. The total extent of land is 01 acre 38 guntas in R.S.No.15/4 and 02 acres 23 guntas in R.S.No.16/4. Therefore, totally there is 04 acres 21 guntas land, for which alleged agreement of sale is executed as stated above. It is the case of the plaintiffs that further two more agreement of sale were executed on 28.06.2000 and 20.06.2002, by which further advance sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was paid. These facts are stoutly denied by the defendant. Therefore, the burden is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 on the plaintiff to prove execution of agreement of sale. But as per concurrent finding of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the execution of sale agreement was not proved including payment of advance sale consideration amount. 10. Upon consideration of records, there is no error found in appreciation of evidence by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in regard to execution of agreement of sale and payment of advance sale consideration amount. 11. It is stated that time is essence of contract. As per the plaint averments, the third agreement is dated 20.06.2002, but the suit is filed on 11.04.2007 i.e., after lapse of three years. Therefore, as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period is three years to enforce the right of specific performance. On this count also the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 12. Further more, as per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the relief of specific performance is discretionary one and this is rightly exercised by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. There is no arbitrariness or perversity found in appreciating the evidence on record as made by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore there is no perversity or illegality found in the judgment and decree of both the Courts, much less there is no substantial question of law involved to admit the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. 13. However, upon the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that in case the plaintiff/appellant is able to prove payment of amount to the defendant/respondent, then liberty be reserved to recover the amount from the defendant as per law, accordingly liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to initiate recovery proceedings, if any, against the defendant, as per law. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:294 RSA No. 5735 of 2013 14. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29