- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O M.V. VENKATESHAPPA 2. SRI. M.V. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPPA 3. SRI. J.V. CHETHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O M.V. VENKATESHAPPA 4. SRI. J.V. CHANDAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O M.V. VENKATESHAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KARNATAKA-563130 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. TAMILARASI K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B.M. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A BAVANAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KARNATAKA-56130 2. MIS SHILPA J.V. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O M.V. VENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KARNATAKA-563130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.47/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S No.47/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 2. The suit in O.S No.47/2019 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2014. Though the defendants entered appearance, they did not file their written statement or cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and did not lead any evidence. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit in terms of its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants are before this Court. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the defendants submits that the appellant No.2/defendant No.2, the eldest male member in the family had suffered a paralytic stroke and was completely bed ridden, as a result of which, he could not take steps to contest the suit. It is further contended that due to his medical condition, he could not gather the required funds to defend the suit. The learned counsel therefore submits that an opportunity be granted to the defendants to contest the suit on merits. (ii) She further contends that the respondent No.2 had availed a hand loan to meet his urgent requirement and taking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 advantage of the same, the respondent No.1 has brought about an unconscionable agreement of sale. She also submits that the defendants are not liable to convey the property in question as there was no agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit property. 4. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- and had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2014 was executed which was duly registered before the concerned Sub- Registrar. (ii) She further contends that even after service of notice, the defendants did not take any steps to file the written statement or cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses or adduce their evidence. Therefore, the trial Court had no other option than to decree the suit. She submits that defendant No.2/appellant No. 2 has not produced any documents to show that he had suffered a paralytic stroke and that he was not able to take steps to defend the suit. She therefore submits that no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 indulgence be shown to the defendants in this appeal and the appeal be dismissed. (iii) She further contends that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has already deposited balance sale consideration of Rs.3,90,000/- before the trial Court and awaiting the execution of a sale deed by the defendants. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellants to contest the suit on merits? 7. The appellant No.2 is aged 53 years which can be discerned from the cause title of the appeal. Though the appellant No.2 has claimed that he had suffered a paralytic stroke and was not able to contest the suit on merits, no document is produced in support of the said contention. 8. Be that as it may, since the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale purportedly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 executed by the appellants/defendants in favour of the respondents and the impugned judgment and decree has resulted in deprival of the appellants of their property, it is appropriate that an opportunity is granted to the appellants to contest the suit on merits. This however, cannot be without compensating the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for the time and labour spent in pursuing the suit before the trial Court. 9. In that view of the matter, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur, is set aside. The suit before the trial Court is restored. 10. The defendants/appellants are directed to appear before the trial Court on 06.04.2026 and also file their written statement on the said day. The trial Court shall frame issues and thereafter proceed in accordance with law and ensure that the trial in the suit is concluded within period of one year from the date of framing of issues. This is however subject to the appellants paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15078 RFA No. 776 of 2023 11. It is made clear that, if the appellants do not pay the said sum, the trial Court shall reiterate its judgment and decree passed on 31.10.2022. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33