[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S.L.Krishnegowda vs G.H.Vasanth on 16 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
RSA No. 1950 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1950 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. S.L.KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O 6TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,
MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
2. YASHASWINI K L
D/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O 6TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,
Digitally signed MADDUR TOWN,
by DEVIKA M MANDYA DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH KARNATAKA - 571428
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. LEKHANAGOWDA K L
D/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R/O 6TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,
MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
4. DEVANANDAGOWDA K L
S/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
RSA No. 1950 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O 6TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,
MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.H.VASANTH
W/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWADA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
2. Y H ABHISHEKGOWDA
S/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
3. SACHINGOWDA Y H
S/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 571428
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
RSA No. 1950 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.10.2025 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.53/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance
is that defendants have entered into the sale agreement on
10.01.2019 with the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid the earnest
money of Rs.6,50,000/- as against Rs.7,25,000/- and time was
fixed for 11 months for completion of the sale agreement. But
the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
Hence, the plaintiff had issued the notice. When the defendants
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
did not come forward to execute the sale deed after issuance of
notice, filed the suit for specific performance. The specific
pleading of he plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract. The defendants took the specific
defence in the written statement that the agreement is only for
security towards the discharge of loan of Rs.5,00,000/-
advanced from the plaintiff and not the sale transaction.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. During the pendency of the suit, the original
plaintiff is expired and his legal heirs are brought on record. In
order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.1(a)
examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to
P7. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant
No.1 as DW1 however, they have not chosen to produce any
document. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph 10,
taken note of that defendants have not disputed their
signatures on Ex.P1 agreement of sale. Ex.P1 is a registered
agreement of sale. It has got initial presumptive value under
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
the provisions of Registration Act and Evidence Act. The Trial
Court relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC
3608 in the case of PREM SINGH AND OTHERS vs BIRBAL
AND OTHERS wherein the Apex Court held that there is a
presumption that a registered document is validly executed.
The Trial Court also taken note of that when the terms and
conditions of the agreement reduced to document in writing
cannot be sought to be proved by any other evidence than
document itself. Considering all these materials, the Trial Court
held that there is absolutely whisper in the agreement that
present transaction is money transaction or the document is
executed for security. In order to prove the same also not
examined any witnesses. The defendants though conducted a
detailed cross examination of PW1, nothing is elicited in the
cross examination of PW1. Defendant No.1 got himself
examined as DW1 and except oral interested testimony, no
documentary evidence supporting the version of the defendants
is produced before the Court. Defendants have not examined
the attesting witnesses on their behalf to come to a conclusion
that it was only a loan transaction. Thus, the Trial Court not
accepted the contention of the defendants and answered Issue
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
No. 1 as affirmative and Issue No. 3 is negative. Issue No. 2 is
also with regard to the ready and willingness is concerned. The
Trial Court taken note of the agreement dated 10.01.2019 and
there was a recital in the agreement that time is fixed for a
period of 11 months and immediately after the said period, the
plaintiff filed the suit and almost maximum amount was paid
i.e., Rs.6,50,000/- as against Rs.7,25,000/- and henc,e
answered Issue No. 2 as affirmative and decreed the suit.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal
was preferred before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.
53/2023.
5. The First Appellate Court also having considered the
grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point that
whether the Trial Court committed an error in holding that
Ex.P1 is an agreement of sale executed by the defendants in
favour of original plaintiff though, it is the contention of the
defendants that they have executed the said agreement in
order to overcome the urgent financial needs as nominal
document. The First Appellate Court taking into note of both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
conclusion that the defence which was taken by the defendants
is not proved and sale agreement is a registered document. A
suggestion was made to PW1 that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
was taken for the education purpose with the interest of 1%
per month and the same was categorically denied and the same
is extracted in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the First
Appellate Court. Another suggestion was made that the said
document is only for security and PW1 denied the said
suggestion and deposed that the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- was
made by way of cheque and Rs.3,00,000/- was made by way of
cash. It is not the case of the defendants that they have
received only an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and same is also not
proved. The said fact is taken note of by the First Appellate
Court. DW1's cross-examination also discussed in paragraph 14
and observation is made that his wife also made signature on
the document of Ex.P1. But he claims that it was only for a
security for loan received by him. In order to substantiate the
same, defendant has not placed any materials before the Court
and the same also considered by the First Appellate Court. The
First Appellate Court considering Ex.P1 coupled with the
evidence of PW1 and DW1 comes to the conclusion that no
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
material is placed before the Court to show that it is only a
security document. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both
the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
committed an error on record and also would contend that
when the property was already pledged in favour of the bank
and the loan was taken from SBI on 25.06.2008 to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- and proceedings was already initiated by the
SBI under SARFAESI Act, all these things were not taken note
of by both the Courts. The counsel would vehemently contend
that the provisions of Sections 91, 92 of the Evidence Act have
no application to Ex.P1 as the defendants have probabilized
their version. The counsel also vehemently contend that both
the Courts are not justified in decreeing the suit for specific
performance when the bank transaction was made in respect of
the very same property earlier and also not given any proper
finding with regard to the ready and willingness to perform his
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
duty to get the sale deed and also not complied with Section
16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and also both the Courts have
not discussed with regard to Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the
Specific Relief Act. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal
and frame the substantial question of law.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that
the specific pleading was made that there was a registered
agreement of sale. Out of the sale consideration of
Rs.7,25,000/-, Rs.6,50,000/- was paid and payment is also
made by way of cheque as well as by way of cash. The said fact
is not disputed. Only it is contended by the defendants that an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was received and not Rs.6,50,000/-.
But in order to substantiate the same, nothing is placed on
record. Though defence was taken that the agreement was only
a security document, in order to prove the same also, nothing
is placed on record. In the cross examination of PW1 to the
effect that it was only a security transaction, nothing is elicited
and the same has been considered by both the Trial Court as
well as First Appellate Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
9. Apart from that, with regard to the ready and
willingness is concerned, the agreement is dated 10.01.2019
and document of sale agreement clearly discloses that 11
months time is fixed and immediately after the 11 months,
notice was issued and approached the Court seeking the relief
of specific performance. When already 90% payment was made
by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement, the very contention
of the appellants that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to
perform his part of contract cannot be accepted. The other
contention of the counsel for the appellants that when the
SARFAESI proceedings was initiated by the bank, ought not to
have granted the relief. But in order to substantiate the same,
appellants/defendants have not placed any material before the
Trial Court with regard to the SARFAESI proceedings is
concerned. The appellants have not produced any documentary
evidence before the Trial Court except the self-serving
statement of DW1. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question
of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53677
HC-KAR
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
