Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Krishnamurthy vs Sri Narayanaswamy on 9 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
RSA No. 1373 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1373 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O SONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT KALAVARA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
by DEVIKA M S/O NARAYANAPPA,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT. BYAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA
D/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4. SRI. S.N. MANJUNATH
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
RSA No. 1373 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. SHASHIKALA
D/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
6. ASHWINI
D/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK-562101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.58/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2023
PASSED IN O.S.NO.328/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
This matter is listed for consideration of IA No.1/2024
there is a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
HC-KAR
2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding. The suit is filed for the relief of specific
performance. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
it is only a monetary transaction and not the sale
transaction and answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 as
negative. The Trial Court in detail taken note of the
evidence of P.W.2 who is the attesting witness comes and
deposed before the Trial Court that it is only a monetary
transaction and not a sale transaction and the same is
taken note of in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 of the
judgment of the Trial Court and in paragraph No.24 also
while considering the material on record and comes to the
conclusion that agreement entered between the plaintiff
and defendant is only a money transaction. Apart from
that time was fixed for 2 years 6 months that too for
obtaining 11E sketch. The Trial Court also taken note of
suit was filed even within a period of 2 years 6 months
and the same is also admitted in paragraph No.21 of the
judgment that cumulative effect these facts coupled with
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
HC-KAR
evidence of P.W.2 and it also supports the contention of
defendants that document as per Ex.P.1 was executed as
security for loan and partly decreed the suit directing to
pay the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with 12% interest per
annum. The said order has challenged before the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.58/2023 and First Appellate
Court also having re-assessed the material available on
record, comes to the conclusion that it was only a money
transaction and also taken note of P.W.2 is the attesting
witness to Ex.P.1. The P.W.2 categorically stated that
P.W.1 plaintiff doing real estate business as well as
agriculture and same was discussed in the paragraph
No.18 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court. Having
taken note of the said admission as well as in paragraph
No.22, admittedly, the government value of the suit
property was Rs.10,50,000/- in the year 2016. However,
the agreement of sale dated 19.08.2019 executed for sale
consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was taken
note of by the Appellate Court while considering the suit
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
HC-KAR
for the relief of Specific performance and taken note of
value of the property more than the sale consideration
shown in the agreement and having re-assessed the
material on record, dismissed the suit and confirmed the
judgment of the trial court as it was only a monetary
transaction.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that even the respondent is ready to execute the
sale deed and the said submission cannot be accepted for
the reason that the witnesses who have been examined
before the Trial Court were cross-examined effectively by
the defendant. When such being the case and when the
concurrent finding was given on the factual aspects of the
case and also one of the witnesses who is attesting
witness to the sale agreement categorically deposes before
the Court that it was only a monetary transaction and
document Ex.P.1 was executed for security. Both the
courts have taken note of the value of the property as well
as sale consideration shown in the sale agreement and
NC: 2025:KHC:19515
HC-KAR
also the payment of money and also the document came
into existence in lieu of monetary transaction. Apart from
that P.W.1 is doing real estate and the same also taken
note of. When such being the case, I do not find any
ground to admit and frame any substantive question of
law and no ground is made out to admit. Hence, second
appeal is dismissed. Consequently, delay application
I.A.No.1/2024 also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
