Karnataka High Court
Sri Ugra Narasimhaiah vs Sri Siddappa on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S..INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. UGRA NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT 80 FEET ROAD,
BADDIHALLI, GOKUL EXTENSION,
KYATHASANDRA POST,
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O RUDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT BADDIHALLI MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed by TUMAKURU - 572 104.
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 2. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT 7TH 'A' CROSS,
MARUTHI NAGAR
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU - 572 102.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29TH NOVEMBER, 2019
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.150 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
ORDER DATED 15TH JULY, 2017 PASSED IN EXECUTION
PETITION NO.9 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND 2nd JMFC., TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97, 100, 101 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the Objector
assailing the judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2019
passed in Regular Appeal No.150 of 2017 on the file of the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Tamakuru (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the
appeal and confirming the order dated 15th July, 2017 passed
on application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 100 and 101 of
the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Petition No.9 of 2014
on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and 2nd JMFC,
Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'),
wherein the above said application was rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking
before the Trial Court.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are
that, Original Suit No.52 of 2011 was filed by one Sri. Siddappa
against Smt. Siddagangamma, seeking relief of specific
performance of contract in respect of the subject land. The
case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that the defendant was
the owner of the suit property in question and has agreed to
sell the same in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration
of Rs.40,000/- and in this regard parties have entered into an
agreement of Sale dated 20th October, 2005. It was agreed by
the defendant that, she will execute the registered Sale Deed,
after she got divided her family property. It is also forthcoming
from the appeal papers that the defendant-Siddagangamma
had filed Original Suit No.322 of 2006, seeking relief of
partition and separate possession in respect of several
properties including the suit schedule property in Original Suit
No.52 of 2011. The suit in Original Suit No.322 of 2006 was
decreed on 18th March, 2019. In the meanwhile, Original Suit
No.52 of 2011 came to be decreed and the defendant-
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
Siddagangamma was directed to execute the registered Sale
Deed in terms of the agreement of Sale dated 20th October,
2005. Since, the defendant refused to execute the registered
Sale Deed, the plaintiff in Original Suit No.52 of 2011 filed
Execution Petition No.9 of 2014 before the Trial Court. In the
said execution petition, the appellant herein has filed
application under Order XXI Rule 97, 100 and 101 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, as an objector to the decree. The said
application was rejected by the Trial Court on 15th July, 2017.
Being aggrieved by the same, the objector/appellant filed
Regular Appeal No.150 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court
and the said appeal, dismissed on 29th November, 2019 on
merits. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/objector
preferred this second appeal.
4. Heard Sri. Srinivas N., learned counsel appearing for
the appellant.
5. Sri. Srinivas N., learned counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that, both the Courts below have not
appreciated the fact that the appellant herein had purchased
the suit schedule property from the defendant-Siddagangamma
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
on 01st August, 2011 on the basis of General Power of Attorney
executed by the defendant in favour of the appellant. It is also
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the First Appellate Court has not considered the fact that
the Sale Deed dated 01st August, 2011 executed in favour of
the appellant is much before the decree passed in the Original
Suit No.52 of 2011. Accordingly, he sought for interference of
this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, it is not in dispute that the Original Suit No.52 of
2011 filed against the defendant-Siddagangamma for specific
performance of contract is based on the agreement of Sale
dated 20th October, 2005 in respect of the suit schedule
property. The condition stipulated in the said agreement was
that the defendant agreed to execute the registered Sale Deed
only after she got divided her family property and in this
connection, the defendant-Siddagangamma filed Original Suit
No.322 of 2006 for partition and separate possession, which
came to be decreed on 18th March, 2019. It is also pertinent to
mention here that, Original Suit No.52 of 2011 is filed, seeking
specific performance of contract, which came to be decreed on
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
11th December, 2013 and thereafter, the plaintiff has filed
Execution Petition No.9 of 2014, seeking direction to the
defendant/judgment debtor-Siddagangamma to execute the
registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff-Siddappa. In the
said Execution Petition, the appellant herein has filed an
application under Order XXI Rule 97, 100, 101 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to consider his rights. The Trial Court, after
considering the material on record, by order dated 15th July,
2017, dismissed the said application filed by the
appellant/objector. Perusal of the finding recorded by Trial
Court in Execution Petition No.9 of 2014 reveals that the
objector/appellant was well aware about the institution of suit
in Original Suit No.52 of 2011. It is also not in dispute with
regard to the fact that, Original Suit No.657 of 2009, seeking
relief of permanent injunction came to be withdrawn in view of
the filing of Original Suit No.52 of 2011. In that view of the
matter, the Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff in
Original Suit No.52 of 2011 has got right in terms of the
Agreement of Sale dated 20th October, 2005 and accordingly,
decreed the suit on 11th December, 2013. The
NC: 2024:KHC:30286
RSA NO.1003 OF 2020
objector/appellant herein himself has admitted before the Trial
Court that, he was awaiting result in Original Suit No.657 of
2009 and Original Suit No.52 of 2011 and therefore, the Trial
Court, rightly rejected the application made by the appellant
herein and same has been considered by the First Appellate
Court following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of SANTHOSH HAZARI vs. PURUSHOTTAM
TIWARI (D) BY LRS reported in (2001)3 SCC 179 with regard
to Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore,
as the appellant has not made out a case for interference under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no substantial
question of law is required to be framed and appeal is liable to
be dismissed at admission stage itself. Accordingly, Regular
Second Appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
