Karnataka High Court
Late Thimmarayappa vs Sri Sandeep Bafna on 18 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
RFA No. 911 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
(APPAELLANTS NO.1 TO 5)
LATE GANGAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
(APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5)
Digitally signed 1. SRI. GOVINDARAJU
by PANKAJA S
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. SRI. GIRISHA
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. SMT LAKSHMAKKA
D/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
RFA No. 911 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. SMT. MAMATHA
D/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
APPELLANT NO. 1 TO 5 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT GUDDADAHATTI
BIDAREKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATHI
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
6. SRI C.P KARTHIK YADAV
S/O SMT. GANGAMMA &
SRI POOJARAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O CHIKKABANAGERE
GOLLARAHATTI, HULIKUNTE
HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. PARIKSHITH MALIYE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SANDEEP BAFNA
S/O GOWTHAM CHAND BAFNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O 1ST CROSS,
BABU JAGAJEEVANRAM EXTENSION
HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN
HIRIYUT TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
2. SMT. THIMMAKKA
D/O LATE BADAGIRIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O GUDDADAHATTI,
BIDAREKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATHI
BIDAREKERE GRAMA
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
SRI D.A SANNAJOGANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
RFA No. 911 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O LATE D.A SANNAJOGANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. SMT. ANITA
D/O LATE D.A SANNAJOGANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
5. SMT. VEDA
D/O LATE D.A SANNAJOGANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
6. SRI. KIRAN YADAV
S/O LATE D.A SANNAJOGANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
7. SRI CHETHAN
S/O LATE D.A SANNAJOGANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 7 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA B, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. GEETHA K.T, ADVCATE FOR R1,
SRI. J.R. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R3, R4, R5 R6 & R7 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2024. PASSED IN OS NO.
60/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SIRA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
RFA No. 911 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for respective parties, the
same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 in O.S.No.60/2013 are
before this Court in this appeal.
3. The learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sira,
(hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") has decreed the
suit in O.S.No.60/2013 with costs against defendant Nos.1, 4 to
10 vide judgment dated 26.03.2024 by directing them to
execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff
within six months from the date of said judgment and decree,
failing which, the plaintiff is at a liberty to get registered the
Sale Deed through the court officer.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
5. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
The suit in O.S.No.60/2013 was filed by the plaintiff for
relief of specific performance of contract against the defendants
directing them to execute an absolute Sale Deed in his favour
in respect of suit schedule property and such other reliefs.
6. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that, the
defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the absolute owners in possession of
the suit schedule property and they approached the plaintiff by
agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties for total sale
consideration of Rs.21,59,000/. Accordingly, on 12.03.2012
they have received a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- out of total sale
consideration on the same day before the presence of
witnesses and executed the Agreement for Sale by agreeing to
execute the registered Sale Deed by receiving Rs.11,50,000/-
by getting the khatha of the suit schedule property changing in
the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the same stood in the
name of the Badagiriyanna (i.e., father of the defendant Nos.1
and 2) within 3 months from the date of the agreement and
defendant Nos.1 to 6 affixed their thumb impression to the said
Sale Agreement in the presence of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant Nos.1 to 8 to receive
the balance consideration and to execute the registered Sale
Deed. However, the defendants went on postponing the same
by saying that the khatha was not yet changed in the name of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also assured that they will get the
survey sketch after changing the khatha. Later, the plaintiff got
the knowledge about changing of khatha in the name of the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the beginning of the September 2013
and when the plaintiff requested for the execution of the
registered Sale Deed, defendant Nos.1 to 8 expressed their
difficulty in getting prepared the survey sketch. The plaintiff got
issued a legal notice on 09.10.2012. It was stated that the said
notice was personally served on defendant No.4 and the
remaining defendants were not served. The plaintiff received
the reply notice stating that the alleged Agreement is concocted
and fabricated and defendant Nos.1 to 8 have denied the
execution of the Agreement for Sale. Thereafter, the plaintiff
obtained Encumbrance Certificate where he came to know that
defendant Nos.1 to 8 have executed the registered Sale Deed
in favour of the defendant No.9. Therefore, defendant No.9 was
made as party to the suit. The plaintiff was ready and willing to
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
perform his part of contract. The cause of action thus arose on
12.03.2012 on the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale.
Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
7. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to
3 and 5 to 8 appeared before the court through their counsel
and filed the written statement and in the written statement,
they admitted the ownership of the suit property. However,
they denied the execution of the Agreement of Sale in favour of
the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff was stranger and
the Agreement of Sale dated 12.03.2012 was concocted and
fabricated one and on 06.08.2010, the defendants had
approached defendant No.9 and offered to sell the schedule
property for the legal necessity and after negotiation, the sale
price was fixed at Rs.22,96,125/-. Accordingly, on the same
day, they executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of
defendant No.9 and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from
defendant No.9 as advance sale consideration with an
understanding that after obtaining the khatha and pahani of the
schedule property in their favour, they would execute the
absolute the Sale Deed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 in order to
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
relinquish her right sought for some amount from defendant
Nos.2 to 8. Pursuant to the said demand, defendant No.2
approached defendant No.9 and sought for further sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- as advance sale consideration to enable him to
obtain the Relinquishment Deed from defendant No.1.
Defendant No.9 agreed to the same and paid a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- and on 19.09.2013, defendant No.2 has
executed another registered Agreement of Sale in favour of
defendant No.9. Thus, in all, they received a sum of
Rs.16,00,000/- from defendant No.9. As such, defendant No.9
was entitled to get the absolute Sale Deed registered in his
favour from defendant Nos.2 to 8 and only for the wrongful
gain, the plaintiff has filed the false suit against them. Hence,
they prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. Defendant No.9 also appeared through his counsel
in pursuance of suit summons and he has also filed the written
statement separately by taking similar contentions as taken by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8.
9. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.10
was impleaded and he also filed his written statement by
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
contending that defendant Nos.1 to 8 being absolute owners in
possession of the suit property executed the Agreement of Sale
in his favour on 18.12.2018 and after obtaining entire sale
consideration, the same was registered and subsequently, on
21.02.2019, defendant No.10 got executed the Sale Deed in his
favour from defendant Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, defendant Nos.1
to 8 being undisputed owners executed the registered Sale
Deed in favour of defendant No.10, which was valid in the eye
of law and as such, the plaintiff has no right in the suit
property. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
defendant Nos.1 to 8 have executed an
agreement of sale in his favour on
12.03.2012 by receiving an earnest money of
Rs.11,50,000/?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he
is ever ready and willing to perform his part
of contract?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the relief sought for in the plaint?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
4. What Order or Decree?
11. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate his case
examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as
P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked 15 documents as per Exs.P1 to
P15. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as
D.W.1 and defendant No.10 examined himself as D.W.2 and
got marked Exs.D.1 to 8.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff
and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the 'affirmative' and issue
No.4 as per the final order and decreed the suit of the plaintiff
as stated supra.
13. The defendant, being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024 passed in
O.S.No.60/2013 preferred the present appeal.
14. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel
Sri.Rajesh Mahale, for the appellants and the learned counsel
Smt.Anitha B., for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
Sri J.R.Mohan for respondent No.2, and also perused the
materials placed before us.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant
Nos.1, 4 to 8 and 10 contended that no opportunity had been
given to the defendants to put forth their arguments on merits
of the case. He produced the copy of the ordersheet maintained
by the Trial Court in O.S.No.60/2013 to evidence the said fact.
He also contended that the Trial Court decreed the suit without
hearing the defendants and without appreciating the evidence
in right perspective. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal
by remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh
consideration by extending an opportunity to the defendants to
argue their case on merits.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposed the prayer of the
appellants/defendants and contended that the Trial Court has
provided sufficient opportunity to the defendants to address
their arguments and thereafter, to file their written arguments.
It is also contended that only after considering the pleadings
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
and the evidence on record, the Trial Court has rightly decreed
the suit. As such, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and having perused the material placed before us, the
sole point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the appellants/
defendants deserve to be provided
with an opportunity to argue the suit
on merits?
18. It could be gathered from materials placed before
us, particularly the ordersheet produced by the
appellants/defendants that though the defendants 4 to 8 and
10 filed NOC vakalath on 15.02.2024 and requested for time to
address arguments, the Trial Court adjourned the matter to
15.03.2024 to file the written arguments. However, on
15.03.2024, the Trial Court, neither heard the
defendants/appellants' counsel, nor received any written
arguments and abruptly, adjourned the matter to 26.03.2024,
on which day, without providing any opportunity to the
defendants to argue the matter, the Trial Court decreed the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
suit. In this view of the matter and having regard to the relief
sought for in the suit which had far reaching consequences,
though the suit concluded after examining witnesses in a detail
trial, yet an opportunity deserves to be granted to the
defendants/appellants to argue the suit on merits.
Consequently, the point for determination raised by this Court
is held in favour of the appellants/defendants. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated
26.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.60/2013 is set aside.
iii. The suit is remitted back to the Trial Court
for reconsideration in accordance with law.
iv. The parties shall appear before the Trial
Court on 22.09.2025 without expecting any
further notice from the Trial Court.
v. It is made clear that the
appellants/defendants shall argue their case on
merits on the said day or on the subsequent date
to be fixed by the Trial Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31782-DB
HC-KAR
vi. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the
suit as early as possible within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is
made clear that if the appellants/defendants failed
to argue the matter on the aforesaid date or on
the subsequent date to be fixed by the Trial Court,
the Trial Court shall dispose off the suit on the
same terms as mentioned in the judgment
impugned in this appeal.
SD/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS/K
