Karnataka High Court
Sri.Gangappa A Marennavar vs Smt.Laxmibai A. Patil on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
RSA No. 100775 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100775 OF 2019 (SP-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANGAPPA A MARENNAVAR
BY ITS LRS.
1a. SMT. LAKSHMIBAI G. MARENNAVAR
W/O. LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURES
1b. SRI. RAJAKUMAR G. MARENNAVAR
S/O. GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURES
1c. SRI. MALLAPPA G. MARENNAVAR
S/O. LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
VN
BADIGER OCC: AGRICULTURES
R1(A) TO (C) R/O. ARJUNAWAD ROAD,
Digitally signed
by V N
NEAR MAHAVEER SCHOOL,
BADIGER
Location: High
HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 590309.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
Date:
2025.02.17 1d. SMT. SUVARNA S. BUGADIKATTI
11:53:04 +0530
W/O. SIDARAYI
D/O. LATE GANGAPPA
OCC: AGRICULTURES
R/O. INGALI, POST NIRWANAHATI
HIDKAL DAM, HUKKERI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591107.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
RSA No. 100775 of 2019
AND:
1. SMT.LAXMIBAI A. PATIL
W/O ANNAGOUDA PATIL,
BY HER LR
1A. SRI. ARAVIND V N
S/O. ANNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURAL AND SERVICE
BUSNIESS DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE
MICRO ACADEMY (I) PVT. LTD.,
#189, AMAR JYOTI LAYOUT,
DOMLUR RING ROAD, BENGALURU-71,
ALSO R/O: AT
C/O VILAS S/O BHIMAPPA NAIKAWADI
NEAR DR.HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL
MAHANTESH NAGAR, GHATAPRABHA,
GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.11/2015 AS WELL IN O.S.NO.196/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUKKERI AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2019 IN
R.A.NO.11/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUKKERI, WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.196/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND
HUKKERI, WAS CONFIRMED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
RSA No. 100775 of 2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing
the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 in
R.A.No.11/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Hukkeri1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 20.02.2015 in
O.S.No.196/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hukkeri2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
has entered into an agreement of sale dated 05.12.1994 in
respect of the suit schedule properties with the defendant
and the total consideration was Rs.90,000/-. It is stated in
the plaint that the plaintiff has paid Rs.80,000/- as
advance amount and undertook to pay remaining amount
of Rs.10,000/- on the date of registration of the sale deed.
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was ready to
perform his part of contract. It is also stated in the plaint
that the land belongs to one Laxmibai. It is also stated in
the plaint that the plaintiff has caused legal notice to the
defendant as the owner of the property - Laxmibai died on
04.05.2006 and the plaintiff succeeded to the estate of
Smt.Laxmibai through testamentary disposition. It is
stated that the defendant - Aravind claiming property
through Will from testator Laxmibai. It is also stated that
Laxmibai had filed O.S.No.74/2000 and stated about the
execution of the sale agreement and accordingly suit is
filed seeking relief of specific performance of contract.
4. On service of notice, the defendant entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint.
5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on
record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case, the plaintiff has examined three
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and produced 75 documents
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.75. The defendant
has examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and
produced 69 documents and same were marked as
Exs.D.1 to D.69.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2015
dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.11/2015 on the file of the
First Appellate Court and the same was contested by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
24.04.2019, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.196/2011. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
7. I have heard Sri.Praveen Tarikar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Chetan
Munnoli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that both the Courts below have not considered
the evidence of deceased Laxmibai in the earlier
proceedings in O.S.No.74/2000 where the execution of the
agreement dated 05.12.1994 find place in the said suit. It
is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the appellant/plaintiff has paid Rs.80,000/-
to the defendant out of total consideration of Rs.90,000/-
and as such, the said aspect of the matter was not
considered by both the Courts below and accordingly
sought for interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents invited attention of the Court to the date of
agreement as 05.12.1994 and suit is filed during 2011.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also invited
attention of the Court to Article 54 of the Limitation Act,
1963 and submitted that the suit itself is barred by time
and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts
below requires to be confirmed in this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
10. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement
with one Smt. Laxmibai, owner of the property in question
who had executed Will in favour of the defendant No.1. It
is also not in dispute that the said Laxmibai died on
04.05.2006. It is also forthcoming from the finding
recorded by the Courts below that though the said
agreement was entered into between the parties in 1994
and the defendant - Aravind claims to be legatee of the
Will and taking into consideration the fact that the suit is
filed on 25.11.2011 with inordinate delay and therefore
the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as
the suit is barred by time.
11. In that view of the matter, taking into
consideration the finding recorded by both Courts below, I
am of the view that no interference is called for under
Section 100 of CPC as the suit is filed beyond the time as
prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2934
12. In the result, appeal fails and same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT:ANB
