[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Prakashbabu @ Muni vs Sri. D.M. Narayana Swamy on 18 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
RSA No. 1172 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1172 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. PRAKASHBABU @ MUNI
S/O. LATE. D V CHIKKAVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. SRI. C LOKESH BABU
D/O. LATE. D V CHIKKAVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 13/1,
RUKMAJI LANE, BALEPET CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 053
3. SMT. C NAGAVENI
D/O. LATE. D V CHIKKAVENKATAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PANKAJA S
R/AT NO. 23,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SULTHANPALYA MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 032
4. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI C
D/O. LATE. D V CHIKKAVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO. 982/29, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040
5. SMT. C. CHANDRIKA
D/O. LATE. D V CHIKKAVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 14, 4TH CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
RSA No. 1172 of 2019
HC-KAR
3RD MAIN ROAD,
WILSONGARDEN,
BENGALURU-560 027
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KRISHNA GOWDA B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. D.M. NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O. LATE. D V MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT MARALBAGILU,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562 110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2019
PASSED IN RA NO 15058/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO 670/2003 (NEW OS NO
410/2006) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 15.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
RSA No. 1172 of 2019
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This is defendants' second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants
for declaration, specific performance of Agreement of Sale
Deed dated 20.10.1988 executed by Chikkavenkatappa
(husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 to
6) in favour of the plaintiff and for the relief of injunction.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land measuring
3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.21, situated at Savakanahalli
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore
District (for brevity, "suit schedule property") originally
belongs to one Mallappa. After his death, his wife
Basamma and her children inherited the suit schedule
property and their names came to be entered in the
revenue records.
4. The said Basamma and her children sold the suit
schedule property to Chikkavenkatappa vide registered
Sale Deed dated 14.07.1980. After purchase, the name of
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
Chikkavenkatappa got entered in the revenue records and
he continued in cultivation of the suit schedule property till
the year 1997. After his demise, his wife and children i.e.,
the defendants got entered their names in the revenue
records and continued to be in possession.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on
20.10.1988, Chikkavenkatappa entered into an Agreement
of Sale with the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property for a total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- and
he received Rs.20,000/- on the date of execution of the
Agreement of Sale and a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 06.06.1991
and further sum of Rs.10,000/- on 10.03.1996, endorsing
the same to the Agreement of Sale. Thus,
Chikkavenkatappa totally received a total sum of
Rs.35,000/-. According to the plaintiff, after execution of
said agreement, he misplaced the same. However, he was
in possession of the suit schedule property for more than
five decades. Later, on 20.02.1999, he has also filed Form
No.7A under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Doddaballapur
Sub-Division to register him as an occupant and grant him
the occupancy right in respect of the suit schedule
property. However, the said application came to be
rejected on 31.01.2003.
6. In the meanwhile, Chikkavenkatappa died in the year
1997. As such, the plaintiff has called upon the defendants
to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the
Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff by issuing a notice
dated 11.07.2003. Since the defendants failed to comply
with the legal notice by executing a Sale Deed, left with no
other option, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for
declaration and specific performance of the aforesaid
Agreement.
7. Upon service of suit summons, the defendants
appeared through their counsel and filed a written
statement by denying the averments made in the plaint
and stated that at no point in time, Chikkavenkatappa
executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
and the plaintiff was never in possession of suit schedule
property and the Agreement of Sale is a concocted
document.
8. On considering the rival pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the relevant issues and on assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, partly decreed the suit with costs
and held that the plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance of Agreement of Sale dated 20.10.1988 and
the plaintiff shall deposit the remaining sale consideration
amount of Rs.10,000/- within one month of the said
judgment. Further, directed defendant Nos.2 to 6 to
execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within two
months, failing which, the plaintiff was given liberty to get
the Sale Deed registered in his name by due process of
law. Further, a consequential injunction was also granted
by restraining defendant Nos.2 to 6 from interfering with
the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
9. On appeal by the defendants, the First Appellate
Court, after re-assessment of evidence and documents on
record, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants by
affirming the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this
court.
10. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri
S.S.Naganand, for Sri Krishna Gowda B., learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri S.P.Shankar, learned Senior
Counsel for Sri Vijayashekara Gowda V., learned counsel
for caveator/respondent.
11. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants/defendants is that both the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred while
allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff without appreciating
the evidence and documents in proper perspective. The
learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in holding
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
that the time is not the essence of the contract though the
Agreement for Sale was executed on 20.10.1988 and the
plaintiff had issued notice on 11.07.2003 calling upon the
defendants to execute the Sale Deed and the suit filed i.e.,
after lapse of 15 years. According to the learned Senior
Counsel, Article 54 of the Limitation Act specifies the suit
for specific performance has to be initiated within 3 years
from the date of refusal of the performance of contract. By
enunciating this contention, the learned Senior Counsel by
emphasizing the admission of PW.1 in paragraph 39 of the
cross-examination, submitted that the limitation starts to
file suit from the year 1998, however, the suit was filed in
the year 2003, as such, the suit is clearly barred by
limitation.
12. He further contended that the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have also erred in not considering the
fact that in the year 1999, the plaintiff made an attempt to
grab the suit schedule property by filing Form No.7A and
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
the said application was rejected on the ground that the
plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule
property. After rejection of said application, the plaintiff
once again made his effort to grab the suit schedule
property by creating a forged Agreement of Sale.
13. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court have also erred in not
considering the contention of the defendant that the
agreement in dispute is a concocted document by forging
the signature of Chikkavenkattappa. Accordingly, the
signature on the Agreement of Sale - Ex.P6 is totally
denied by the defendants and they filed I.A.No.15 before
the Trial Court to refer Ex.P2 i.e., the original Sale Deed,
which had the admitted signature of Chikkavenkatappa
and Ex.P6 the alleged Agreement of Sale to handwriting
expert for comparison of signatures of Chikkavenkatappa.
The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. The
said order was not challenged by the defendants with the
hope that the same would be considered by the Trial Court
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
during the course of the judgment. However, the Trial
Court has totally failed to appreciate the same and it has
not even framed any issue on that aspect. In such
circumstance, when the execution of the agreement and
the signature on it, are seriously disputed by the
defendants, the Trial Court ought to have referred the
matter to the handwriting expert to get an opinion in
respect of genuineness of the execution of the same.
14. He also contended that there is no cause of action for
filing the suit and the same is an imaginary and illusive
cause of action. In such circumstance, he prays to allow
the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgments.
15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff contended that both the Courts have
concurrently held that Ex.P6 makes it clear that the time is
not the essence of contract. The plaintiff has paid a sum of
Rs.35,000/- out of Rs.45,000/- and no time was fixed or
bargained for completing the transaction. Thereafter, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
possession of land was given and the documents of title
were also delivered by the vendor to the purchaser by way
of part performance of Agreement for Sale. According to
the learned Senior Counsel, there is no stipulation in the
Agreement for Sale regarding time within which the
transaction of sale has to be completed. On the rumor that
defendants were trying to sell the suit schedule property,
the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 11.07.2003 and
accordingly, as per the terms of Article 54 of the Limitation
Act, the suit for specific performance was filed on
25.08.2003 without any loss of time. In such
circumstance, the suit was well within time.
16. He further contended that the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court compared the signature of
Chikkavenkatappa on Ex.P6 - Agreement of Sale and after
examining the signature with Ex.P2 - Sale Deed, the
Courts came to the conclusion that there is no doubt with
regard to the signature of Chikkavenkatappa and as such,
there is no necessity to refer the same to the handwriting
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
expert. Accordingly, the application filed by the defendants
was rejected. However, the defendants have not
challenged the said order. As such, the same has attained
finality. In such circumstances, the defendants now cannot
claim that the signature on Ex.P6 is a forged one.
17. He also contended that the plaintiff has paid
Rs.35,000/- to the defendant out of Rs.45,000/-. As such,
his readiness and willingness to perform the contract was
also proved and accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that the agreement was proved.
18. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that,
the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 established the Agreement of
Sale. PW.2 has categorically stated that the agreement
was executed in his presence and the part of sale
consideration was paid by the plaintiff in his presence. The
said evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was not rebutted by the
defendants by placing relevant documents though the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
defendants disputed the agreement in question and also
the amount paid by the plaintiff.
19. By enunciating his contention, he submitted that
while Chikkavenkatappa has not denied the execution of
Ex.P6 - the Agreement of Sale and had not denied further
endorsements - Ex.P6A and Ex.P6B which was in his
handwriting, during his lifetime, his legal heirs, who had
not participated in the negotiation leading to Agreement of
Sale, cannot lead any rebuttal evidence as they were
neither in possession nor produced any documents having
the admitted signature of Chikkavenkatappa to compare
the same with the signatures in Ex.P6 and for referring the
same to scientific examination under Order XXVI Rule 10A
of CPC. The scope and purpose of scientific examination is
to compare the disputed signature with the admitted or
exemplar signature, the defendants did not provide any
material for comparison of disputed signature with the
admitted signature of Chikkavenkatappa. As such, the
scientific examination is impossible in the absence of any
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
admitted signature. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
20. This appeal was admitted to consider the following
substantial questions of law:
i) Whether the Appellate Court
could have relied upon its own comparison
of the disputed signatures with the
admitted signatures when a request for
forensic examination of such signatures
was rejected by the Trial Court and one of
the grounds urged in the appeal was as
regards such rejection?
ii) Whether the finding by the
Courts below on the question of limitation
is based on evidence and in the light of the
settled law?
21. In order to answer the first substantial question of
law, it is relevant to observe that it is the specific case of
the defendants that the agreement in question Ex.P6 is a
concocted document and at no point of time, their father
Chikkavenkatappa entered into the said agreement with
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
the plaintiff. The defendants denied the signature on
Ex.P6. It is equally important to note that the defendants,
by relying on the admitted signature of Chikkavenkatappa
on Ex.P2 - Sale Deed, contended that there is a huge
difference in the signature of Chikkavenkatappa in Ex.P2
and Ex.P6 in respect of pattern in handwritings i.e., the
form of size, skill, slant, speed, letter designs, strokes etc.
As such, the defendants filed IA.No.15 before the Trial
Court for comparison and reference of same to the
handwriting expert. As the said application was filed after
the plaintiff and defendants evidence, when the matter
was posted for arguments, the Trial Court rejected the
same observing that it was not proper at that stage to
record findings on the same. By observing so, the Trial
Court has neither discussed the said aspect in the
judgment nor framed any issues in that regard.
22. On perusal of the reasoning for rejection of
I.A.No.15, I am of the view that the Trial Court has erred
in applying the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
this Court in the case of BASAVARAJ Vs. ASHOK &
OTHERS - ILR 2007 KAR 247, wherein this Court has
specifically held that when the Court entertains a slightest
doubt with regard to the signatures, then it shall not
hesitate to compare the signature and the same shall be
sent for examination by the expert. However, in the said
judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held
that if there is no application by both the parties, the
Court has power to compare the disputed signature under
Section 73 of CPC. But in the instant case, when the
defendants had filed the application disputing the
signature of Chikkavenkatappa on the alleged Agreement -
Ex.P6, the Court ought to have sent the documents for
examination by the handwriting expert.
23. It is equally important to note that the defendants in
their written statement itself denied the signature of
Chikkavenkatappa on Ex.P6. It is their specific case in the
written statement that the signatures are forged one.
Further, strangely, the plaintiff filed an application in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
Form-7A in respect of suit schedule property in the year
1999 under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act claiming occupancy right. The said application was
rejected in the year 2003 and thereafter, he issued the
legal notice to the defendants in respect of execution of
the agreement and performance of the contract. Such
being the position, the Trial Court ought to have
entertained the application filed by the defendants for
referring the disputed signatures to handwriting experts
for comparison. Thus, in my considered view, the first
substantial question of law is answered in favour of the
defendants.
24. In respect of second substantial question of law is
concerned, admittedly Ex.P6 - the alleged agreement was
executed in the year 1988 and the remaining payments
were also made in the year 1991 and 1996. No doubt, as
per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the limitation starts
from the date of refusal of the contract, but in the instant
case, on careful examination of the evidence of PW.1 in his
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that after
death of Chikkavenkatappa in the year 1997, he requested
his wife - defendant No.1 in the year 1998 to execute the
Sale Deed, however, she refused to execute the same. In
such circumstances, it is to be examined in detail that
whether the refusal of execution of the Sale Deed starts
from 1998 and whether the limitation point also starts
from the said date. This aspect of the matter was not
properly considered by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court and the issues raised in respect of the
same were not answered properly by referring to the
evidence of PW1. In such circumstances, in my considered
view, the said aspect of the matter has to be re-
considered by the Trial Court. Thus, the second substantial
question of law is also answered in favour of the
defendants.
25. In view of the above discussion, in my considered
view, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of
the Trial Court by referring the disputed signatures of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
Chikkavenkatappa in Ex.P6 with the admitted signature in
Ex.P2, to the handwriting expert for comparison and also
by framing the relevant issues on that aspect as well as a
considered finding on the issue of limitation. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The second appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgments and decrees
passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.410/2006 (old O.S.No.670/2003)
dated 03.11.2018 and the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.15058/2018 dated
20.03.2019 are set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial
Court for fresh consideration by extending
opportunity to the parties and referring the
disputed signatures of Chikkavenkatappa in
Ex.P6 with his admitted signature on Ex.P2
to the handwriting expert and also re-
appreciating the question of limitation by
considering the evidence of PW.1.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:54308
HC-KAR
iv) The Trial Court shall frame additional issues
with regard to aforesaid aspects.
v) The parties are also permitted to lead
evidence and to produce the relevant
documents, if any.
vi) The Trial Court is directed to dispose off
the suit as early as possible and in
accordance with the Karnataka (Case
Flow management in Subordinate Courts)
Rules, 2005.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
