Karnataka High Court
Sri. K. P. Krishnappa vs Sri. D. A. Govindarajulu on 5 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32121
RSA No. 1246 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1246 OF 2023 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.P. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. ARIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TALEMARADHALLI VILLAGE,
Y.N.HOSAKOTE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BALAJI PRASAD H., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUNITHA H. SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI D.A. GOVINDARAJULU
S/O. ASHWATHANARAYANA SHETTY,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Location: HIGH AGE: MAJOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1(a) SRI D.V. ASHWATHANARAYANASHETTY,
S/O. LATE DAVANAM VENKATAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
AGE: MAJOR
1(b) SRI D.A. MAYURA
D/O. D.V. ASHWATHANARAYANASHETTY,
AGED BOUT 50 YEARS,
1(c) SRI D.A. NALINA KUMARI
D/O. D.V. ASHWATHANARAYANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32121
RSA No. 1246 of 2023
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
PONNASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
Y.N. HOSAKOTE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202.
2. SRI D.A. AMARNATH
S/O. LATE SRI ASHWATHANARAYANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PONNASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
Y.N. HOSKOTE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK-561 202.
3. SRI D.V. RAMAMURHTY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
3(a) SMT. D.R. KOUSALYA MURTHY
W/O. LATE D.V.RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
'D' GROUP LAYOUT,
BEHIND SRIGANDHA KAVAL
BUS STOP, NEAR BDA COMPLEX,
NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU - 560 072.
4. SRI D.R.RAJESH KUMAR
S/O. LATE D.V. RAMAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 2141,
8TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
'D' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC. AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2023 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.5096/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.30/2011
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32121
RSA No. 1246 of 2023
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
PAVAGADA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant i.e., subsequent
purchaser of the property, that too, when the suit was pending
before the Trial Court for the relief of specific performance
which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs based on the sale
agreement and also when there was an order of injunction, not
to alienate the property.
3. The very contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that he is the bonafide purchaser of the property
and the fact that suit was pending and there was an interim
order not to alienate the property is not in dispute. Both the
Courts have taken note of the execution of the document of
sale agreement dated 27.02.2011, wherein an earnest money
of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in favour of the original owner, out
of sale consideration of Rs.6,25,000/- and within a span of
eight months, the appellant-defendant No.3 has purchased the
NC: 2023:KHC:32121
RSA No. 1246 of 2023
property from the defendant No.1 on 16.02.2012 and the Trial
Court comes to the conclusion that the suit is hit by lis pendens
and when the material discloses that there was already a sale,
the defendant No.1, who had executed the sale agreement did
not contest the matter and disputing the very fact that there
was an agreement of sale and the purchaser i.e., the appellant
has purchased the property when the suit was pending for the
relief of specific performance and when there was an order of
injunction not to alienate the property, the appellant ought to
have enquired into the matter and instead, he has purchased
the property within a span of five months of the suit filed for
the relief of specific performance and both the Courts
considered the material on record that defendant No.1 had
executed the sale agreement and received the earnest money
of Rs.1,00,000/- and also taken note of the fact that said
transaction has taken place between this appellant-defendant
No.3 and defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit and
also the fact that the transaction has taken place in violation of
the order of the Court. Hence, comes to the conclusion that he
is not a bonafide purchaser and when such concurrent finding is
given by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court, the
NC: 2023:KHC:32121
RSA No. 1246 of 2023
very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that he
is the bonafide purchaser cannot be considered.
4. Admittedly, the appellant has purchased the
property when the suit was pending and also when there was
an order of injunction not to alienate the property to anyone
and also there was no any sale agreement between the
appellant-defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 and directly the
appellant had purchased the property vide sale deed dated
16.02.2012. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that he is the bonafide purchaser cannot be
accepted. Therefore, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantial question of law and if any fraud is played
by defendant No.1 in favour of appellant-defendant No.3, as
contended, he has to take action against him in accordance
with law. Hence, it is not a fit case to invoke Section 100 of
CPC to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
