Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataramanappa V M vs Sri Ramappa B V on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
RSA No. 1308 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2016 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA .V.M.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O MUNISWAMY
VENGASANDRA VILLAGE & POST,
KYSAMBALLI HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 141.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: VARUN .P., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PAVITHRA N AND:
Location: high
court of karnataka SRI. RAMAPPA .B.V.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
RESIDENT OF NEW TOWN,
BETHAMANGALA, BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 141.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: NOOR UL HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN RA
NO.244/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2012
PASSED IN OS NO.392/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE, K.G.F.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
RSA No. 1308 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful defendant assailing the concurrent judgment
of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiff's suit for specific
performance of contract based on an agreement to sell
dated 03.11.2007 is decreed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific
performance of contract based on the agreement for sale
dated 03.11.2007. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendant offered to sell the suit property and has
executed the agreement for sale on 03.112007 by
receiving part sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- out of
total sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. Plaintiff's case is
that the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- was
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
agreed to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed
at Sub-registrar office, Bangarpete.
The present suit is filed alleging that the defendant
having received substantial sale consideration of
Rs.1,50,000/-, went on postponing on one pretext or
another, which compelled the plaintiff to issue legal notice
on 05.09.2009 calling upon the defendant to complete the
transaction. Present suit is filed alleging that though
notice was served on the defendant, the defendant has not
come forward to complete the transaction.
4. The defendant on receipt of summons, tendered
appearance and filed written statement denying the
alleged suit agreement set up by the plaintiff. The
defendant on the contrary claimed that on account of
financial constraints, he approached the plaintiff to provide
hand loan of Rs.50,000/- and the plaintiff had obtained his
signatures on the blank papers as security to the said
hand loan. The defendant therefore contended that he
had no intention to sell the suit property. The defendant
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
also claimed that the property is worth Rs.6 lakhs and
therefore, disputed the alleged sale transaction set up by
the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim, examined
himself as PW-1 and examined the scribe of the suit
agreement as PW-2. The plaintiff produced the sale
agreement which is marked as Ex.P1.
6. The defendant has let in oral evidence, but has
not chosen to lead any rebuttal evidence. The trial Court
having taken cognizance of the recitals in the sale
agreement vide Ex.P1 and the evidence of the scribe
examined as PW-2, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the
affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative. While
answering issue No.3 in the negative, the trial Court held
that the defendant has failed to substantiate and prove his
contention that the plaintiff has secured his signatures on
the blank papers while lending hand loan of Rs.50,000/-.
While answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the trial
Court held that the plaintiff is successful in proving the
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
transaction vide Ex.P1 and payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as
an advance amount.
7. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court
being final fact finding Authority, independently assessed
the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by
both the parties. The Appellate Court infact has gone one
step further and has meticulously examined the evidence
of DW-1. Relevant admissions in cross-examination were
culled out by the Appellate Court at para No.20 of the
judgment. The Appellate Court referring to these
admissions, was of the view that the defendant though set
up theory of concoction, however, during trial, virtually
admitted the sale transaction and receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-.
The Appellate Court has also taken cognizance of the fact
that the defendant though was served with legal notice,
has not chosen to issue any reply notice. On these set of
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
reasoning, the Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the
appeal. These concurrent findings are under challenge.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
defendant/appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff/respondent. I have given my anxious
consideration to the findings recorded by both the Courts
below. I have also taken note of the judgments cited by
learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant.
9. The defendant has not disputed the signatures
on the suit agreement. His defence is that the signatures
were secured on blank stamp papers only as security to
the hand loan availed by the defendant. It is a settled
proposition of law that a party setting up theory of
concoction has to discharge his burden and substantiate
that his signatures were secured on the blank papers. If
due execution is admitted and contents are disputed, the
burden is always on the party disputing the contents. The
plaintiff by examining the scribe as PW-2 has successfully
discharged his burden. PW-2 is the scribe who has
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
specifically deposed that in his presence the defendant has
received advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and has
executed the suit agreement.
10. The theory of concoction in the present case
cannot be believed for the simple reason that the suit
agreement admittedly is a registered document. If the
suit agreement was registered before the Jurisdictional
Sub-registrar, the theory of concoction set up the
defendant appears to be an after thought as the blank
papers cannot be presented for registration before the
Sub-registrar. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence to
substantiate that he had put his signatures on the blank
paper, both the Courts were justified in granting
discretionary relief of specific performance of contract.
The materials on record placed by the plaintiff would
obviously lean in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, both
the Courts were justified in exercising its discretion in
granting the relief of specific performance of contract.
Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for
NC: 2023:KHC:43838
consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of
merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN
