- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.243 OF 2010 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. EERAMA W/O H S SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. MAHADEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O H S SHIVAPPA MAHADEVA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs 3. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, 5. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.3 IS THE WIFE AND APPELLANTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE MAHADEVA APPELLANTS 4 AND 5 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.3 6. NANJUNDASWAMY S/O H S SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE ALL R/O HARAVE VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, TQ. HUNSUR, DISTRICT – MYSORE-571 105 7. SAVITHRAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU A/A 47 YEARS, R/O BASAVESHWARA BLOCK, ANEKERE SOMWARPET, NORTH COORG-571236 8. SMT.PARVATHAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU A/A 44 YEARS, R/O ANCHEHALLI, KERAGODU, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401 9. SMT.NANJAMANNI W/O LOKESH A/A 38 YEARS, R/O KADUVINA HOSA HALLI, KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TQ. NORTH COORG- 571 236 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: B.N. ANANDARAJ S/O LATE NARASAIAH A/A 33 YEARS, R/A NO.2194, KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR TOWN DIST: MYSORE -571 105 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAGARAJ KRAPAKAR HEGDE FOR SRI SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATES) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2009, PASSED IN R.A.NO.223/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.97/2002, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AND JMFC, HUNSUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nagaraj, advocate for Sri Subramanya R, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Regular Second Appeal is by the defendant in O.S No.97/2002 challenging the concurrent finding of decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract of agreement to sale. 3. Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law, by the Order dated 26.07.2010. “Whether the Courts below were justified in relying on the agreement of sale Ex.P.1, when signatures on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 Ex.P.1 was found to be in variance with the signature of H.S.Mallikarjuna when compared to Ex.D-1 and D.3?” 4. In the case on hand, having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 5. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P-1 is the sale agreement. According to the defendant, he has not executed the sale agreement and the signature found in Ex.P-1 is not the signature of the original defendant Sri H.S. Mallikarjuna. 6. Suit on contest came to be decreed by considered judgment dated 21.10.2008. While so decreeing the suit, learned Trial Judge has held in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 as under: “The learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the court is vested with the power u/s 73 of Indian Evidence Act to compare the admitted signatures with that of the disputed signatures. The admitted signatures are on Ex.D.1 and D.3, the disputed signatures are on Ex.P.1. If the disputed signatures are compared with the admitted signatures, they are not similar, there is variance in each letter in the alleged signatures of H.S.Mallikarjuna on Ex.P.1. The learned counsel for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 the plaintiff has also argued that the admitted signatures and disputed signatures are compared, from the bare eyes it could be seen that they are very similar to each other, in comparing the signatures the pen pressure and pen stroke is to be seen not otherwise. 18. On looking to the records the disputed signatures and admitted signatures are before the Court. The disputed signatures are on Ex.P.1. The admitted signatures are on Ex.D.1 and D.3. Of course, D.W.1 has denied some of the signatures on Ex.D.3. But it is immaterial when the Court intends to take the admitted signatures and disputed signatures for comparison. Ex.D.3 itself is the admitted document produced on defendants’ side. If the admitted signatures on Ex.D.1 and 3 and disputed signatures on Ex.P.1 are compared, the pen stroke and pen pressure is of the same, no difference is found out. Merely because there is little difference in writing style that is immaterial. I do not find any force in the document canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants that disputed signatures on Ex.P.1 are not tallying with that of the admitted signatures on Ex.D.1 and D.3.” 7. Admittedly, there was no attempt on behalf of the defendant to get the signature found on Ex.P-1 tallied with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 admitted signatures by sending the same to the handwriting expert. 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, apart from plaintiff three more witnesses were examined as PWs.2, 3 and 4. 9. PW-2/Vinod is one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P-1 who deposed about his presence when the Ex.P-1 came to be executed. He identified the signature of the defendant marked at Ex.P-1(a) and his signature is marked at Ex.P-1(b). 10. In his cross-examination, he has answered that he is acquainted with the defendant/H.S.Mallikarjuna for last 10 years inasmuch as, he was pledging the gold ornaments in his shop and used to obtain loan. H.S. Mallikarjuna has paid the pledge amount many times and got back the pledged ornaments. Therefore, he is well acquainted with the signature of the defendant/H.S. Mallikarjuna. 11. He has deposed that on the date of execution of the agreement also defendant had visited his shop at about 11.30 a.m. and he had been to the place of the plaintiff for subscribing his signature to the agreement of sale as witness. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 12. He has specifically answered that stamp paper for execution of Ex.P-1 was obtained by the defendant himself from the stamp vendor. Further, he has answered that the advance sale consideration comprised of currency notes of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- denomination. 13. He has also answered that he is acquainted with plaintiff, but he is not personally known to him. He has further answered that he is acquainted with elder brother of the plaintiff and he had visited the house of plaintiff’s elder brother. He denied the other suggestions. 14. PW-4/Ramachandraiah is yet another witness to Ex.P-1 who has also identified the signature of the defendant/ H.S. Mallikarjuna in Ex.P-1. He has also identifed the signatures of PW-2 in Ex.P-1 and his own signature as Ex.P-1(d). 15. In his cross-examination he admits that he is a licensed deed writer for 27 years and he renews his license every year. He has further answered that his daughter's name is Smt.Bhagyaratna and she is the stamp vendor who sold the stamp paper to prepare Ex.P-1. He has further answered that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 his daughter is having the stamp paper vending office in the Taluk Office. 16. As could be seen from the aforesaid evidence, not only the plaintiff, but, two witnesses have consistently identified the signature of the defendant on Ex.P-1. 17. Mere denial by the defendant of his signature in Ex.P-1 would not ipso facto render that the signature found on Ex.P-1 is a forged signature. 18. As against the signatures found in Ex.P-1, signatures found in Ex.D-1/sale deed were also confronted to PW-1. No doubt, there is slight variation in the signatures found in Ex.D-1 and Ex.P-1. But those variations are natural variations. 19. If the defendants would contend that the signature of H.S. Mallikarjuna found in Ex.P-1 is a forged signature, nothing prevented them to send signatures to the handwriting expert. 20. When there is material evidence placed on record which is positive in nature by the plaintiff by examining himself, producing Ex.P-1 and examining the attesting witnesses, solely - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 on the ground that defendant has denied the signature of Sri H.S.Mallikarjuna in Ex.D-1 would not ipso facto render Ex.P-1 as invalid. Moreover, witness, P.W.2 and P.W.4 did not nurture any enmity against the defendant to depose against him. 21. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, decreeing of the suit by the learned Trial Judge which was re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, concurrent finding of fact that Ex.P-1 stands proved cannot be annulled by resorting to the powers vested in this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when there is no positive attempt made on behalf of the defendants to establish the fact that signatures in Ex.P-1 is not that of Sri H.S.Malikarjuna, who is the vendor of the suit property under Ex.P-1. 22. Further, plaintiff and his witnesses have withstood the searching cross-examination and have specifically answered that Ex.P-1 came to be executed by the defendant in their presence. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 23. Only on the ground that PW-4 is a deed writer, his evidence cannot be doubted and stamp paper being sold by daughter of PW-4, it cannot be presumed that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 colluded to defraud H.S. Mallikarjuna and concocted Ex.P-1. 24. These aspects of the matter have been rightly appreciated by both the Courts and on re-appreciating the material evidence on record in the light of the substantial question of law raised at the time of admission referred to supra, this Court is satisfied that the material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to hold that Ex.P-1 stands established in accordance with law. 25. Further, when the defendants have disputed the very document marked at Ex.P-1/agreement to sale, no other defences can be considered by this Court including the hardship. 26. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13328 RSA No. 243 of 2010 27. Consequently, following: ORDER (i) Appeal dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79