Karnataka High Court
Krishna Naik vs Ravikumar K T on 10 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
RSA No. 141 of 2025
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.141 OF 2025 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA NAIK
S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
2. GOWRAMMA W/O KRISHNA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. GANGADHARA NAIK S/O KRISHNA NALK
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
4. GOUTHAMI D/O GANGADHARA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 5. GAGANA D/O GANGADHARA NAIK
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 6. PRADHAN S/O GANGADHARA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.3.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUNDIHALLI VILLAGE
HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH NAIK L., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
RSA No. 141 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. RAVIKUMAR K.T.,
S/O LATE K.G.THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUNDIHALLI VILLAGE
HOSUR HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.A.HARIKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/2024 ON THE FILE OF
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
21.12.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.114/2019 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent. This second appeal
is filed against the concurrent finding.
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
before the Trial Court that the defendants in order to
overcome their legal necessities intended to sell the suit
schedule properties and executed registered agreement of
sale on 03.04.2019 agreeing to sell the scheduled
properties in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration
of Rs.10,00,000/- and received earnest money of
Rs.7,00,000/- and remaining balance amount payable is is
Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contented by the plaintiff that
plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. But, the defendant appeared and filed the written
statement contending that the sale agreement is obtained
fraudulently by plaintiff in view of debt of Rs.3,00,000/- to
be paid to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and obtained the
said document. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any
relief of specific performance.
3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings
of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to
lead evidence and accordingly the plaintiff got examined 3
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
witnesses including the plaintiff as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got
marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other hand,
defendants have examined 7 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.7
and also got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The Trial
Court having considered the material on record
particularly, document is a registered document and
D.W.3 is a consenting witness to the said document and
also taken note of the material available on record,
particularly the admissions on the part of witnesses and
when the specific defence was taken that fraudulently
obtained the document. The Trial Court having considered
the documents which have been placed on record in
paragraph No.52 comes to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 was
signed by the parties and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have
signed the same and there is a specific reference about
the defendant agreeing to sell the suit properties and
defendants having received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-
executed the document and document is also dated
04.04.2019 and also there is a recital about the flow of
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
title to the defendants that it was an ancestral property
and when such details are given in the agreement of sale
and received the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance
payment was only Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. The Trial Court also considered the evidence of
witnesses in paragraph No.53 and made an observation
that it is emerged during the course of evidence that
D.W.3 during the course of cross-examination, he
admitted that he studied up to 10th standard and D.W.6 is
studied upto PUC and D.W.7 is studied upto 10th Standard
and subscribe their signature in English language, even
the defendant No.3's wife is signed in English language.
The defendant No.1 has signed the document in Kannada
language. He has signed the document only after
consulting 3 to 4 persons in his village and two of them
are attesting witnesses and they are only knowledgeable
persons and also taken note of if an executant of a deed is
literate, there will be initial presumption that the executant
has affixed his signature only after understood its
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
contents. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendants
that they had no opportunity to read the documents
before signing it and the same also taken note of in
paragraph No.54 and the other material available on
record also taken note of. The suggestion made to the
P.W.1 that defendants would pay Rs.3,000/- with interest
at 6% per annum and pay the same within six months and
really such a terms was agreed, why it was not
incorporated in the Ex.D.1 and also taken note of Trial
Court and D.W.1 also admits the suggestion that he had
no burden to get the agreement in respect of sheep
transaction, it means that he knew that Ex.P.1 is out
agreement of sale and the suggestion was made to that
the document exhibit came into existence in a fraudulent
circumstances ought to have placed on material regarding
the circumstances under which the document was
obtained and nothing is placed on record and hence, the
Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence as well as the admissions on the part of
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
witnesses who have been examined D.W.1 to D.W.7
granted the relief of specific performance and directed to
receive balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and execute the
document.
5. Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal
is filed in R.A.No.45/2024 and Appellate Court having
considered the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal memo, since they took the specific defence that
they have executed the alleged sale agreement for
security purpose in respect of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
relating to selling 90 sheeps of plaintiff and also taken
note of the grounds which have been urged and whether it
requires interference of this Court.
6. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed
both oral and documentary evidence as well as the
defence which was taken that document Ex.P.1 is a
security document in order to prove the said contention,
nothing is placed on record as well as taken note of the
documents of Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10 postal receipts and
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
acknowledgment which discloses that defendant Nos.1 and
2 have received the legal notice and apart from that reply
was given setting out false reply that the document of
exhibit came into existence as a security for payment of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards the value of the sheep. In order to
substantiate the same, no such material is placed on
record. When the document is a registered document and
also the witnesses have been examined before the Court
that is also taken note of the First Appellate Court in
paragraph No.25 that D.W.1 to D.W.3, D.W.6 and D.W.7
have identified the photographs of D.W.1 to D.W.3 on
Ex.P.1 document that is a sale agreement and D.W.1 to
D.W.3 have also admitted their signatures and the LTM
found on Ex.P.1 document. Hence, it is clear that with the
knowledge only, they have executed the document and
identified their signature which have been found. The
D.W.1 to DW3 have admitted the same and also taken
note of that defendants have not raised any objections
before the by stating that they have executed the
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
document only for security purpose and when they went to
the Sub-registrar office and part of the document signing
the same and also photographs are also identified. Now,
they cannot contend that document came into existence
only towards the security and the same is also taken note
of by the First Appellate Court while confirming the
judgment of the Trial Court. In paragraph No.26 also
taken note of defendants except their oral testimony have
not produced any document have been observed that
defendant No.1 has sold 90 sheeps of plaintiff in weekly
santhe and remained due for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was
the defence was taken. In order to prove that defence that
it was a transaction of payment of sale consideration
towards the sheep, nothing is placed on record and re-
appreciated the same and comes to the conclusion that
the appellants have failed to prove that it was a security
document and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
7. Now, the counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that both the Courts have
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
committed an error in considering the material on record
particularly when the sale agreement was executed,
according to them it was a sale agreement, but the same
was only a guarantee for loan deed with respect to
ancestral joint property executed by one coparcener by
the right, title and interest. The counsel would vehemently
contend that during the course of cross-examination, the
suggestion that suit schedule properties are ancestral
properties has been admitted. But, the fact is that D.W.1
to D.W.3 went to the Sub-registrar office and though
contend that all of them have not signed but all of them
have knowledge about the sale of the property and also
issued the sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance
payable only Rs.3,00,000/- and also admissions on the
part of D.W.1 to D.W.7 was also taken note of by the Trial
Court as well as First Appellate Court and also answer
elicited from the mouth of witnesses those who contend
that they are the illiterates and not having the knowledge
about the same, the same has been discussed by both the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that some of
them have studied up to P.U.C and S.S.L.C and also they
have signed the document in English when they have been
examined. But, only DW1 in his cross examination denies
his ignorance as to the suggestion that in the presence of
the witnesses, he had received the earnest money and
promised to sell the suit property except denying that he
is not aware of the same, but he did not deny the
signature available in Ex.P.1 and the same is extracted in
paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of the Trial Court. The Appellate
Court also having considered the material record both in
respect of the factual aspect as well as the question of law
taken note of and also comes to the conclusion that when
the document was executed before the Sub-registrar and
the same is a registered document and the very
contention that fraudulently obtained the document is not
accepted since D.W.1 to D.W.3 photo was also found and
identified in the document of the registered document and
hence that document was obtained fraudulently was not
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25557
HC-KAR
accepted and when such being the case, the very
contention of the appellant's counsel that it was only a
document of security as contented by the defence cannot
be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantive question of law when there is no
any error on the part of Trial Court and Appellate Court.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
