Karnataka High Court
Smt. Aswathamma vs Smt. Jayalakshmamma on 10 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
RSA No. 1625 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ASWATHAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.,
1. SRI N. ASWATHANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
2. SRI. NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
Digitally signed S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. SRI NAGARAJAPPA @ NAGAPPA
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
5. SMT. THIMMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
6. SMT. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
RSA No. 1625 of 2022
HC-KAR
7. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA @ KRISHNAMURTHY D
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
8. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
D/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA
NOS 1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
D PALYA VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O LATE MUDDAPPA
2. SMT. CHAYADEVI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE MUDDAPPA
3. SRI. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE MUDDAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT D PALYA VILLAGE
AND HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2022
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
RSA No. 1625 of 2022
HC-KAR
PASSED IN RA.No.03/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.12.2019 PASSED IN OS No.172/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The matter is listed for admission.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings. The case of the plaintiff who is the appellant
before this Court contended that one Muddappa who is the
husband of the first defendant and father of the second
and third defendants executed an agreement of sale dated
25.09.1989 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for
a valuable consideration of Rs.4,000/- and also contended
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
that the entire sale consideration was paid on the very
same day on the date of agreement of sale i.e., on
25.09.1989 and also he was put in possession of the
property and he was enjoying the suit schedule property
and also contends that the plaintiff was always ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. It is contended that
in view of execution of agreement, defendants were the
legal heirs of Late Muddappa are bound to execute the
sale deed. It is also contended that now the defendants
are interfering with his possession and defendants
appeared and filed written statement and denied all the
agreement as well as the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred
by limitation and approached the Court almost after ten
years of the alleged agreement.
4. The Trial Court having considered the
pleadings, framed the issues and allowed the parties to
lead the evidence and the Trial Court having considered
both oral and documentary evidence available on record,
answered all the issues i.e., issues No.1 to 6 regarding
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
very execution of agreement, delivery of possession,
payment of sale consideration and also it is the obligation
on the part of the defendants to execute the sale deed are
answered 'negative' and additional issue No.1 also
answered as 'affirmative' and coming to the conclusion
that suit is barred by limitation since the alleged
agreement is dated 25.09.1989 and dismissed the suit.
While dismissing the suit, also taken note of the very
contentions of respective parties and particularly taken
note of suit agreement i.e., Ex.P5 having noticed that
same was executed on 25.09.1989 and taken note of that
stamp paper was issued from the treasury on 08.10.1989
and same was issued by the stamp vendor Nagaraj on
24.10.1989, but, agreement is prior to both the dates and
also taken note on the face of the agreement of sale -
Ex.P5 itself reflected that agreement of sale was executed
before coming to existence of stamp before and answered
the issue as 'negative' and come to the conclusion that
there is no execution of such agreement by the husband
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
and father of defendants and also taken note of that the
suit was filed after lapse of 10 years and given reasons
that the same is barred by limitation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of
the suit filed before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
also having considered the issues and additional issues as
well as the grounds which have been urged before the
Appellate Court, formulated the points whether the
appellants have proved the very execution of the sale
agreement by Muddappa and also the payment of entire
sale consideration and delivery of possession and whether
the judgment required inference. Appellate court also re-
appreciated the material available on record, particularly,
taken note of the document Ex.P5 is prepared on bond
paper of Rs.8/- and also not taken the signature of
Defendant No.3. Notice was issued to defendant No.1 in
the year 2007 and also taken note of the evidence of PW1
to PW3 and particularly PW3 admitted regarding proving of
the document, he categorically admit that he do not know
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
when the said document was executed and also he do not
know who have signed on the same and also in the cross
examination of PW2 he admitted that Ex.P5 is not in his
hand writing and stamp paper was brought by the
husband of defendant No.1 on 25.09.1989, but the stamp
papers are issued on subsequent dates. All these aspects
also taken note of by the Appellate Court while re-
appreciating the material on record and confirmed the
judgment.
6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent
findings, the present second appeal is filed before this
Court. The main contention of the counsel is that the
orders passed by both the courts in dismissing the suit and
is erroneous and the reasoning of the First Appellate court
is also not tenable and answering of the issue as 'negative'
regarding passing of consideration and execution of sale
agreement and disbelieving the Ex.P5 is erroneous and
prayed to frame substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and
having assigned the reasons that the Trial Court
particularly, in paragraph No.24 taken note of the date of
the agreement as well as issuance of stamp paper by the
treasury as well as by the stamp vendor and i.e., the date
of treasury seal as 08.10.1989 and issuance by stamp
vendor on 24.10.1989, but the alleged sale agreement is
dated 25.09.1989 and PW2 deposes that the husband of
first defendant i.e., Muddappa himself has brought the
stamp paper on 25.09.1989 itself and also taken note of
the evidence of PW3 who also categorically deposes that
he do not know who had all signed the document and very
execution of the document was doubtful as well as the
very stamp paper issued in the month of October, but the
alleged agreement came to be executed in the month of
September itself and in a case of granting specific
performance even though proved the agreement, even
there is a lawful agreement, it is the duty cast upon the
Court to exercise the discretion when granting the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:25399
HC-KAR
specific performance. In a case on hand, the very
execution of document is doubtful as well as the material
clearly discloses that Ex.P5 - suit agreement is a created
agreement and both has been considered by the Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court. It is not a case for
even exercising the discretion by the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court and also no ground is made out to
admit and to frame substantial questions of law before this
Court and no grounds to admit and to frame substantial
questions of law. In view of the discussion made above, I
pass the following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SNC
CT: BHK
