Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddappa vs Venkatesha on 21 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
RSA No. 1455 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2023 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O. HULUGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O. DINDADAHALLI
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESHA
S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally signed R/O. CHINAKURULI VILLAGE
by DEVIKA M PANDAVAPURA TALUK
Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. R. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. MANJAPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
4. R. RAJAPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
RSA No. 1455 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4
ALL R/O. ASHOKA NAGARA VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 26.04.2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2002 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA.
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. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief at the first
instance for injunction and in the second instance,
amending the plaint for specific performance specifically
pleaded that the deceased Rudrappa son of Gurappa
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
executed an agreement of sale dated 05.12.2000 in favour
of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property for
total consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, it is
the contention that the deceased Rudrappa had received
Rs.75,000/- towards advance amount and also contention
that he had agreed to sell northern portion of 2 acres out
of the suit property for total consideration of Rs.85,000/-
and on 16.06.2004, received the amount of Rs.40,000/-
and also pleaded that he was always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract. The defendants appeared and
filed written statement disputing the very execution of
document of sale agreement and receipt of the advance
amount and also took the contention that the suit is
barred by limitation.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the
evidence of P.W.1 not inspires the confidence of the Court
and in paragraph No.20 taken note of the evidence of
P.W.1 and also taken note of evidence of P.W.1 in
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
paragraph No.21 with regard to the very execution of the
document and also the witnesses who are present at the
execution of the said document. The Trial Court also taken
note of the admission on the part of P.W.2 and who says
that only an amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid in his
presence at the time of agreement and also he cannot say
whether an amount of Rs.40,000/- was taken earlier and
he has not aware of the same and also he cannot say
whether the payment of Rs.40,000/- was mentioned in the
agreement or not and apart from that the evidence of
P.W.4 also taken note of with regard to the payment is
concerned. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 comes to the
conclusion that the pleadings of the plaintiff is one thing
and his admission is another and cross-examination of
P.W.1 is also one thing, but, the recital in the agreement is
contrary to the admission of P.W.2 and comes to the
conclusion that the very execution of the agreement was
not proved and dismissed the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed
before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also
having considered the grounds which have been urged in
the first appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial
Court has misread the document and oral evidence and
whether it comes to the wrong conclusion that plaintiff is
not in possession of the suit schedule property as well as
with regard to the execution of the document and whether
it requires interference of this Court. Having re-assessed
both oral and documentary evidence available on record,
particularly case of the plaintiff is discussed in paragraph
No.12 with regard to the payment of earnest money is
concerned. In paragraph No.14 taken note of the
admission on the part of P.W.1 that at the time of writing
the document at Ex.P.1, possession was not given. Apart
from that also taken note of evidence of other witnesses
P.W.2 and P.W 3 having re-assessed the same and comes
to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.3 are contrary to each other and the same was taken
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
note of by the Trial Court and Trial Court not committed
any error in appreciating both the oral and documentary
evidence and confirmed judgment of the Trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main
contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant
before this Court is that the defendant though he has been
examined as D.W.1 before the Court and he did not
subject for cross-examination and with regard to the
proving of the document of Ex.P.1-agreement is
concerned, if he would have been subjected to cross
examination and answer would have been elicited from the
mouth of D.W.1. But, he was not subjected to cross-
examination. The counsel would vehemently contend that
the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to the
readiness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific
Relief Act though he had placed evidence on record to
prove the same, but committed an error in not exercising
the discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
and hence, this Court has to admit and frame substantive
question of law.
6. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
on perusal of material available on record, particularly with
regard to the very execution of agreement is concerned,
the Trial Court taken note of evidence of P.W.1 and the
same is extracted in paragraph No.20 with regard to the
recital of the document of Ex.P.1 and also with regard to
the payment of consideration is concerned and he says
that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was given at a time and
the evidence of P.W.2 is that he was present at the time of
only payment of Rs.35,000/- and he was not aware of
anything about the earlier payment of Rs.40,000/- and
the same is also extracted in paragraph No.21 and comes
to the conclusion that the very evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2
and P.W.3 and the same is contrary to the very recitals of
Ex.P.1 and the contra evidence is available on record with
regard to the very execution of document Ex.P.1 and the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is contrary to the evidence of
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
P.W.1 and hence, taken note of that the evidence of P.W.1
to P.W.3 not inspires the confidence of the Court with
regard to the execution of the same. When the same was
also considered by the Appellate Court while appreciating
the material available on record, particularly Appellate
Court also taken note of while considering the point No.2
in paragraph No.14 as well as in paragraph No.17 with
regard to the payment is concerned which is elicited from
the mouth of P.W.1 and re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence exercising the power under Order
41 Rule 31 of CPC and so also with regard to the very
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and unless the
agreement is proved, question of invoking Section 16(c)
and Section 20 doesn't arise. When such materials were
considered by the Trial Court as well as by the First
Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame substantive question of law and both question of
law and both question of fact are considered by the Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:48256
HC-KAR
Court and First Appellate Court and hence, not a case to
invoke Section 100 of CPC.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if
any do not survive for consideration, the
same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
