[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri H L Narayana vs Sri H G Eshwar on 18 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
RSA No. 1276 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H.L. NARAYANA
S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH
AGED 69 YEARS
R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHAGERE HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK-572130
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.G. ESHWAR
S/O LATE GANGAVEERANNA
Digitally signed AGED 46 YEARS
by DEVIKA M R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH KOTHAGERE HOBLI
COURT OF KUNIGAL TALUK-572130
KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PUNITHA C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.211/2022 ON THE FILE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
RSA No. 1276 of 2025
HC-KAR
OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUNIGAL.
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 matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
caveator-respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the
Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is
that defendant has executed a sale agreement on 06.08.2021
by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- as
against total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is also
contented that time is the essence of contract and one year
time was fixed to complete the sale transaction. But, the
defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
Hence, legal notice was issued in terms of Ex.P5 and the same
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
HC-KAR
was served and no reply was given. Therefore, filed the suit for
the relief of specific performance.
4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement
contending that the said document is only a security for the
loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence.
The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two
witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to Exs.P10. On the other hand, the defendant examined
himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to
D7 and except self-serving statement with regard to it is only a
security document executed towards loan amount of
Rs.5,00,000/-, not examined any of the witnesses.
6. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of
P.W.1 as well as two witnesses, who deposed before the Court
with regard to sale transaction is concerned, accepted the case
of the plaintiff and granted the relief of specific performance,
accepting the case of plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
HC-KAR
7. The appellant has filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Court contending that it was only a security
document and not the sale agreement. The First Appellate
Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence
in view of the grounds which have been urged in the first
appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court has
committed an error in accepting the sale agreement and
rejecting the contention of the defendant. He admits that
plaintiff is financially sound and he is capable of paying
Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, the defendant had borrowed loan from
the bank and had mortgaged his self-acquired properties by
executing a mortgage deed as per Ex.D7 which includes the
suit schedule property and taking into note of all these
materials, comes to the conclusion that defendant was in need
of money. Hence, executed the sale agreement and plaintiff
also proved the very execution of sale agreement by the
defendant and the Trial Court has not committed any error and
confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding,
the present second appeal is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
HC-KAR
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellant is that both the Courts have committed an
error in ignoring the fact that suit schedule properties are not
free from encumbrance and they were subject matter of the
suit in O.S.No.211/2022 and the scheduled properties are
mortgaged in favour of Union Bank of India. The counsel also
contend that both the Courts committed an error in not
considering Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act and
merely because Ex.P1 has been admitted by the defendant,
without proving the contents, there cannot be any judgment
and decree for specific performance. Hence, this court has to
admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator-
respondent would submit that both the Courts without taking
note of the material on record, committed an error in passing
an order. However, the document is admitted, but only
contention was taken that it was only a security document and
the same is not proved and substantiated by placing any
material, except the self-serving statement of P.W.1. Hence,
there is no perversity in the finding of Trial Court and the First
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
HC-KAR
Appellate Court. Hence, no ground is made out to allow the
appeal.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also learned counsel for caveator-respondent and also
considering the pleadings of plaintiff and defendant, it is the
specific case of the plaintiff that defendant executed an
agreement of sale and received the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as
against Rs.7,50,000/- and time was the essence of contract
and one year time is fixed and agreement is of the year 2021.
When the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale
agreement, notice was issued and no reply was given and
hence filed the suit in 2022 itself. Though, it is contented that it
is only a security document, in order to prove the same, the
defendant except self-serving statement, not placed any
material on record. On the other hand, the plaintiff examined
himself as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses for proving
the sale agreement. When there was no delay on the part of
the plaintiff in seeking the relief of specific performance and 11
months time was fixed and immediately, the plaintiff has acted
upon and also amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid as against
NC: 2025:KHC:54299
HC-KAR
Rs.7,50,000/- and when substantial payment was made and
when the defendant did not come forward and not
substantiated his defence by leading any cogent evidence, both
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of the
same while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence
and both question of fact and question of law are considered by
both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the
second appeal and frame any substantial question of law
invoking Section 100 of CPC.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80
