Karnataka High Court
S M Kumar vs Smt Nagamma on 14 November, 2025
-1-
RSA No. 2327 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2018 (SP)
BETWEEN:
S M KUMAR
S/O MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O ASHOKA ROAD,
SAGAR TOWN,
SAGAR-577401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SHRI.MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
3. SHRI.MOHANA
S/O LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
4. SMT JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SMT.SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
-2-
RSA No. 2327 of 2018
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O BHEEMANAKONE ROAD,
GANDHINAGARA, SAGAR TOWN,
SAGAR-577401.
...RESPONDENTS
(R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 AND R-5 -
ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.08.2018 IN
R.A.NO.2/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR AND CONFIRM THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present Regular Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018, in R.A.No.2/2018, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate Court' for short) and confirm judgment and -3- RSA No. 2327 of 2018 decree dated 06.10.2016, passed in O.S.No.124/2012, passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short).
2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.1 before the first appellate Court and plaintiff before the trial Court. Respondents No.1 & 2 herein are the appellants No.1 & 2 before the first appellate Court and Defendants No.1 & 2 before the trial Court and respondents No.3, 4 and 5 herein are the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 before the first appellate Court, defendants No.3, 4 and 5 before the trial Court.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
4. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the sale agreement allegedly executed by the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and deliver possession thereof, or in the alternative, for execution of the sale deed through the Court at the plaintiff's cost, and for -4- RSA No. 2327 of 2018 recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the defendants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit until realization, with costs.
5. The brief facts of the case are that:-
The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 02.04.2008 allegedly executed by late Neelakantappa, the then manager of a Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself, his wife, two sons, and two daughters, in respect of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 03 guntas in Sy. No. 29/3, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District. The plaintiff contended that the said property originally belonged to one Thippappa, who upon his death left two sons--Neelakanta and Nagaraja--who divided the property equally, whereby Neelakanta became the owner of the southern portion comprising the suit property. During 2006, Neelakantappa borrowed a hand loan of Rs.10,000/-
from the plaintiff by cheque bearing No.002165 drawn on Sri Ganapathi Urban Co-operative Bank, Sagar. -5- RSA No. 2327 of 2018
6. Subsequently, as Neelakantappa had mortgaged the family house to the same bank and the property was brought to public auction in the year 2008 for recovery of dues, the family required Rs.1,85,000/- to save the house and decided to sell the suit schedule property. Pursuant to negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-, of which Rs.90,000/- was paid as advance on 02.04.2008 under the registered sale agreement and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
7. After the execution of registered sale agreement, i.e., on 02.04.2008, the defendants further borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff through cheque No.003286 of the same bank, agreeing to adjust Rs.20,000/- therein towards the balance sale consideration and to repay the remaining Rs.40,000/- along with the earlier hand loan of Rs.10,000/- at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. However, despite repeated requests, Neelakantappa and his sons failed to execute the -6- RSA No. 2327 of 2018 sale deed on the pretext of delay in obtaining NOC from the Tahasildar. During this period, Neelakantappa expired, leaving behind his wife, two sons, and two daughters as his legal heirs. Consequently, the plaintiff has impleaded them as defendants and instituted the suit for specific performance of the said contract or, in the alternative, for execution of the sale deed by Court on behalf of the defendants at the plaintiff's cost, together with recovery of Rs.50,000/- from the defendants along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization, and for costs.
8. Per contra on receipt of suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsels. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the defendants, they have not filed their written statement.
9. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues for consideration:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proved the execution of sale agreement dated 02.04.2008 as contended by him?-7- RSA No. 2327 of 2018
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proved that he has been and still ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit until its realization?
(iv) What Order
10. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself has been examined as PW1 and got marked 11 documents at Ex.P1 to P11. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the defendants, they have neither cross examined the PW1 nor adduced their evidence. Trial court has taken the cross-examination of PW1 by the defendants and the evidence of the defendants as nil.
11. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held as under:-
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property at the cost of plaintiff.
On failure of the defendants to comply the above order, plaintiff is entitled to get the -8- RSA No. 2327 of 2018 decree to be executed through the process of the Court.
The defendants are also jointly and severally liable to repay a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit until its realization.
12. Assailing the said Judgement and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.2/2018. The first appellate Court has framed following issues for consideration:-
(i) Whether the trial court has committed error in granting the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the rate of interest of
12% p.a. awarded by the trial Court is
reasonable?
(iii) Whether the judgment and decree
dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Sagar
O.S.No.124/2012 are contrary to law, facts and materials on record?
(iv) Are there any grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court?
(v) What Order?
-9-RSA No. 2327 of 2018
13. The first appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances passed the following Order:-
This regular appeal filed by the appellants against the respondents is allowed in part without cost.
Judgment and decree dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar O.S.No.124/2012 are hereby partly set aside in respect of the granting of relief of specific performance of contract and the percentage of rate of interest awarded by the trial court and the said judgment and decree are modified as the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on
Rs.10,000/- from 28.12.2006 and on
Rs.1,50,000/- from 02.04.2008 till realization to the plaintiff. Liability of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to pay the aforesaid amount is restricted only to the extent of the assets of the deceased by name Neelakantappa S/o Guthyappa, which have come to their hands from the aforesaid deceased.
Draw decree accordingly.
14. The learned counsel appearing fort the appellant would contend that the first appellate Court has gravely erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment
- 10 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018and decree of the Trial Court dated in O.S.No.124/2012, on erroneous, untenable, and extraneous grounds without proper appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence that clearly established the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance of the registered sale agreement dated 02.04.2008. The first appellate Court has further committed a serious error in modifying the decree by reducing the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 9% per annum, despite the Trial Court having rightly exercised its discretion in accordance with the evidence on record. The said modification and partial allowance of the appeal are contrary to the facts, material evidence and settled principles of law.
15. It is further contended that the first appellate Court has also failed to appreciate that the defendants had neither disputed the material facts pleaded by the plaintiff nor controverted the specific issues framed by the Trial Court. It has exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on irrelevant and extraneous documents which were neither
- 11 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018pleaded nor subjected to adjudication during the trial. Hence, the present appeal.
16. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
17. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and submissions made by learned counsel, this second appeal was admitted vide order dated 02.09.2021 and framed the substantial question of law as under:-
(i) Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to execution of the Agreement of sale dated 02.04.2008 is just and proper?
18. On hearing the submissions of the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents, it appears that at the outset, it has to be noticed that this being a second appeal, it is only substantial question of law which gives raise for this Court to clutch the jurisdiction and answer the said question of law as otherwise, this Court would lack jurisdiction to entertain second appeal.
19. In the present case, the substantial question of law for consideration relates to the correctness of the
- 12 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018conclusion of the first appellate Court on the question of execution of the sale agreement.
20. In determining the substantial question of law framed by this Court, it is pertinent to examine whether the first appellate Court had applied correct legal principles and whether its conclusion is supported by the record.
21. On careful consideration appreciation of the material placed on record and submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, it is apparent that the trial Court passed judgment and decree only relying on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Though the opportunity was given to the defendants to file Written Statement, the defendants failed file a written statement before the trial Court and did not lead any evidence to defend their case in hand. Further, that the first appellate Court, without remitting the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication and without providing cogent reasons based on the record, altered the decision of the trial Court.
- 13 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018
22. In light of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court cannot be allowed to stand without affording the parties the opportunity to place all relevant material before the proper forum. The substantial question of law is therefore answered against the first appellate Court's interference with the trial Court's judgment and decree.
23. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The present appeal is disposed of.
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 in R.A. No.2/2018 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, insofar as it set aside and modified the trial Court's decree dated 06.10.2016 in O.S. No.124/2012, is set aside.
- 14 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar for fresh adjudication on merits.
(iv) The Trial Court is directed to reopen the case within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.
(v) The parties are hereby directed to appear before the trial Court without waiting to receive the notice in accordance with law.
(vi) Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to file their written statement, within 30 days from the date of reopening of the matter.
(vii) The Trial Court is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible i.e., within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
- 15 -
RSA No. 2327 of 2018
(viii) There shall be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal.
Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV