Karnataka High Court
Mr T R Sathish Heggade vs Munishappa on 14 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40612
RSA No. 45 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.T.R. SATHISH HEGGADE
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.G. RAMANNA HEGGADE,
R/AT FLAT NO G-8,
PALACE ORCHID APARTMENT,
9TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560094
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M MUNISHAPPA DEAD BY LRS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
1.
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
2. MR.M.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
3. SMT. M. MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40612
RSA No. 45 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. MR.M.RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
R1 TO R4 ARE
R/AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562101
5. SMT.SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562157
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2023 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.71/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.06.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.109/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant executed a sale agreement dated 21.10.2005 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs,4,50,000/- and received an amount of Rs.60,000/- as advance. It is the contention that plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and hence allowed the parties to lead evidence and plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and also examined one witness as P.W.2. On the other hand defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1, but has not produced any documentary evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the agreement is proved but, answered the Issue No.2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. While answering Issue No.2, the Trial Court -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR comes to the conclusion that in order to pay the balance amount is concerned, not produced any documentary proof even though considered the statement of the year 2005 and suit was filed in the year 2014 and with regard to the amount in his account is concerned, comes to the conclusion that not placed any documentary proof and also taken note of the fact that notice was issued on 21.10.2011 as per Ex.P.2 and not produced any document to show that notice is served on the defendant and for that reason, limitation cannot be calculated and ordered to refund of amount with 7% interest per annum for the date of execution of the agreement of sale till its realization, the same is challenged before the Appellate court.
3. The Appellate court having considered the grounds which have been urged as against the finding of Issue No.2 in paragraph No.29, comes to the conclusion that this Court doesn't find any error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating with regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is concerned -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR and taken note of even after issuance of notice as per Ex.P.2 in the year 2011, suit was filed after lapse of 2½ years and plaintiff never pressurized the defendant to get remove the prohibition clause entered in clause No.11 of RTC. If really the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, he would not have remained silent for nearly 9 years of execution of agreement of sale as per Ex.P.1. Therefore, the reasoning of the Trial Court is not erroneous and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his argument would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the deposition that when the suggestion was made and answer was given that it was not correct. But, taken note of only portion of the suggestion that he has not produced any document with regard to his capacity is concerned to pay the balance amount. No doubt the said observation is -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR erroneous and the entire sentence was not extracted while answering Issue No.2. But, Court has to take note of the material available on record. Admittedly, agreement was executed in the year 2005 and notice was issued in the year 2011 i.e., after lapse of 6 years. Even after the issuance of notice in terms of Ex.P.2 also, not filed the suit immediately. Suit was filed in the year 2014 i.e., almost after 9 years of the sale agreement and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and by making a part payment of Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.4,50,000/-, the plaintiff who seeks for the relief of specific performance cannot keep quiet for years, that too for a period of 9 years, even after causing of legal notice also, not rushed to the Court for the relief of specific performance. There was a delay, not only in filing the suit and while seeking the relief of specific performance, it is very clear under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act that always he must be ready and willing to have the sale deed. When such pleading is -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR made, but the same has to be proved by conduct for seeking the relief of specific performance and the same is not forthcoming. Hence, the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that not a case for granting the specific relief. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court. Though the Trial Court discussed with regard to the capacity to pay the money, but the Appellate Court while considering the issue of readiness and willingness in paragraph Nos.29 and 30 taken note of non-filing of the suit immediately.
5. It is also important to note that in terms of the sale agreement, time is stipulated only for 120 days and immediately after 120 days, even if the documents are not furnished by the defendant, plaintiff has not taken any action when the time is the essence of contract. Hence, no reasons to reverse the finding of the Trial Court or for admitting and framing of substantive question of law. Both the Courts considered the question of fact and question of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR law, particularly with regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is concerned.
6. Now, the counsel would vehemently contend that interest was only ordered for 7%, but, there is a clause in the agreement that in case of any default is concerned, interest ought to have been awarded as 24%. But, I have already pointed out that when the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the said clause cannot be insisted to award an interest at the rate of 24% p.a. There is a delay and latches on the part of the plaintiff himself in not approaching the Court for the relief of specific performance that too suit filed almost after lapse of 9 years of entering into an agreement when the time is essence of the contract. Hence, the said contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant also cannot be accepted. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit and frame substantive question of law.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:40612 RSA No. 45 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30