Karnataka High Court
Vijaykumar S/O Tukaram Padmashali vs Paramma W/O Earappa Kangetenavaru And ... on 4 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
RSA No. 200257 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200257 OF 2021 (SP)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYKUMAR S/O TUKARAM PADMASHALI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O #9-4-284/1, SAI COLONY,
BEHIND NANDI PETROL PUMP,
BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ K. BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARAMMA W/O EARAPPA KANGETENAVARU,
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed R/O LADGERI, BIDAR,
by SACHIN TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MALLAPPA S/O EARAPPA KANGETENAVARU,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O LADGERI, BIDAR.
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
3. MALLIKARJUN S/O BANDEPPA GIRI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O LADGERI, BIDAR-585 401,
THROUGH HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HANMANTH S/O SUBHASH GIRI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
RSA No. 200257 of 2021
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE,
R/O LADGERI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR METRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2020 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.07/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, BIDAR, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2013
PASSED IN O.S. NO.49/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (J.D) AT BIDAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the purchaser of the
subject land from the defendants, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 13.10.2020 in R.A.
No.07/2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Bidar, allowing the appeal in-part filed by the
defendants.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the appeal are
that, the plaintiff has filed suit against the defendants,
seeking relief of specific performance of registered
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
agreement of sale dated 26.03.2004 entered into between
the plaintiff with the defendants. It is the case of the
plaintiff that, defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No.1.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that, the defendants are
the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing
Sy.No.65/2 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situate at
Haladkeri village, Bidar Taluk. The plaintiff and defendants
have entered into a registered agreement of sale dated
26.03.2004, whereby the defendants agree to sell the
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for total
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Pursuant to the same, it is
stated by the plaintiff that, he has paid Rs.80,000/- to the
defendants as advance and the remaining sum of
Rs.20,000/- would be paid at the time of execution of the
registered sale deed. It is stated in the agreement that the
entire transaction has to be completed on or before
25.03.2007. However, the defendants failed to perform
their part of contract, resulting in filing of O.S.No.49/2010
by the plaintiff against the defendants, seeking relief of
specific performance of agreement dated 26.03.2004.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
3. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying
the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of
the defendants that, the brother of the plaintiff by name
Subhash Giri was a friend of the defendants and he has
agreed to cancel the agreement of sale and as such, the
defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial
Court framed the issues for its consideration.
5. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiff has
examined 2 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked
14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. No evidence was adduced
on behalf of the defendants.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 25.06.2013,
decreed the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendants
to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
have filed R.A. No.07/2007 before the First Appellate
Court and the appeal was resisted by the plaintiff.
7. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
13.10.2020, allowed the appeal in-part and directed the
defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.80,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of
agreement till filing of the suit.
8. In the said interregnum period, the appellant
herein has purchased the schedule property from the
defendants as per registered sale deed dated 12.04.2016
and being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
by the First Appellate Court, the present appellant has
preferred this appeal by seeking leave of the Court as per
order dated 06.12.2023 on I.A. No.1/2023.
9. I have heard Sri Jairaj K. Bukka, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Sachin M.
Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
10. Sri Jairaj K. Bukka, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant contended that the appellant herein has
purchased the schedule property from the defendants as
per registered sale deed dated 12.04.23016 and the
appellant herein is not a party before both the Courts
below, however, the purchase of the property by the
appellant is by looking into the revenue records and as
such, the appellant has sought for interference of this
Court.
11. Per contra, Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3 sought to justify
the impugned judgment and decree.
12. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the appellant herein is not a party before both
the Courts below. The Trial Court vide judgment and
decree dated 25.06.2013, decreed the suit of the plaintiff
with a direction to the defendants to execute the
registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
the schedule property in question. It is also not in dispute
that, the defendants have entered into a registered
agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 26.03.2004. It is
pertinent to mention here that, after the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court on 25.06.2013 in
O.S.No.49/2010, the defendants have sold the land in
question in favour of the appellant herein as per registered
sale deed dated 12.04.2016. Perusal of the finding
recorded by the First Appellate Court would indicate that,
the defendants have challenged the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court after execution of the registered
sale deed in fauovr of the appellant on 12.014.2016. In
that view of the matter, as the defendants have suffered
decree from the Trial Court in respect of suit for specific
performance and have sold the property before filing of
the Regular First Appeal before the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Bidar, I am of the view that, the appellant
herein is not being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court. It is well established
principle of law that, only the parties to the agreement
NC: 2024:KHC-K:112
have to agitate their rights in a suit seeking relief of
specific performance. In the instant case, as the appellant
is neither an agreement holder, nor a owner of the
property in question in terms of the registered agreement
of sale dated 26.03.2004, he cannot maintain the appeal
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if at
all, the appellant is having any grievance against the
defendants, he can work out his remedy in a manner
known to law.
13. In the result, the appellant has not made out a
case for framing of substantial question of law required
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.2/2021 for
stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
