Karnataka High Court
Fakkiragouda S/O Gauranagouda Patil vs Channabasanagouda on 5 March, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4860
RSA No. 100896 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100896 OF 2016 (SP-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O. GURANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGOAN,
DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT
CHIKKA-MANGALORE,
DIST: CHIKKA-MANGALORE-577101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. CHANNABASANAGOUDA
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA HUTTANAGOUDAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed R/O: HIREMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGOAN,
by SUJATA
SUBHASH DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI. S.G. NANDOOR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SETION 100 OF CPC PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN R.A. NO.11/2011 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2010 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN O.S. NO.89/2006 AND
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4860
RSA No. 100896 of 2016
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging
the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.11/2011 dated
27.06.2016 passed by the I Addl.District and Sessions
Judge, Haveri.
2. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the
parties is referred to as per their status before the trial
Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific
performance of contract stating that the defendant is the
owner of the suit land and defendant has approached the
plaintiff for his legal and family necessity to sell his suit
land and agreement for sale was executed on 31.05.2004
for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and on that
date, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the defendant,
but later on the defendant was not ready to perform his
part of the contract, therefore, the plaintiff was
constrained to file the suit for specific performance of
contract.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4860
4. The trial Court has dismissed the suit for the
reason that plaintiff has not proved execution of the
agreement of sale and upon appeal filed by the plaintiff,
the first appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
On this concurrent finding of fact, the plaintiff is in the
second appeal before this Court.
5. PWs.2 and 3 are stated to be attesting
witnesses to the agreement for sale. But upon considering
the evidence of PW2, found to be the close relative of the
plaintiff, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved his evidence
as PW2 does not have personal knowledge regarding the
execution of the agreement for sale, but upon the say of
plaintiff, he has deposed. PW3 evidence is full of
inconsistency in proving the execution of the agreement
for sale; therefore, both the trial Court and the first
appellate Court have rightly disbelieved evidence of PW3.
6. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff
is a Librarian in Chikkamangaluru, the defendant has
taken hand loan of Rs.30,000/- only from the plaintiff and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4860
at that time the plaintiff had obtained signature on the
blank paper and those blank papers were misused by the
plaintiff in filing the suit.
7. It is the case of the defendant that he has
repaid the said loan of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff. Both
the trial Court and the first appellate Court have
disbelieved the case and evidence of the plaintiff and have
dismissed the suit.
8. It is proved that PW2 is the relative of plaintiff
and admittedly he does not have personal knowledge
regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and
defendant and on the say of plaintiff, he has deposed the
evidence.
9. There is inconsistency in the evidence of PWs2
and 3 in respect of contents of Ex.P3. It is the evidence of
PW3 that as per his admission in the evidence, after
completion of writing Ex.P3, agreement for sale, PW3 went
to the house of the plaintiff and on the say of plaintiff, he
put signature on Ex.P3 and further admitted that before
putting signature on Ex.P3, what were the talks held
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4860
between plaintiff and defendant, he does not know.
Therefore, the evidence of PW3 deposing that he does not
have personal knowledge regarding the transaction
between the plaintiff and the defendant and after
completion of writing of Ex.P3-agreement for sale, he put
his signature, there remains no evidence of PW1, which is
self explanations and pleadings without corroboration.
Therefore, in this regard, both the trial Court and the first
appellate Court have correctly held that agreement for
sale-Ex.P3 is not proved. Thus, he is not entitled to
decree, for specific performance of contract. Accordingly,
appeal lacks merit, having no substantial question of law
to be considered. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed
accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
CT:ANB
