Karnataka High Court
Sri.C.V.Ramakrishnappa vs Sri.D.Jayarame Gowda on 25 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
RSA No. 1680 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1680 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C V RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI VENKATARAYAPPA
2. SMT. NIRMALA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SRI C V RAMAKRISHNAPPA
3. SRI KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O SRI C V RAMAKRISHNAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
4. SRI KISHORE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
KARNATAKA S/O SRI C V RAMAKRISHNAPPA
THE APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT CHEEMANAHALLI VILALGE
KASABA HOBLI
MARALAKUNTE POST
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DSITRICT - 562101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
RSA No. 1680 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND:
SRI D JAYARAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O SRI DODDAKALAPPA
R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MARALAKUNTE POST
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DSITRICT - 562101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND CJM,
CHICKBALLAPUR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
RSA No. 1680 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before
the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance
of sale agreement is that defendants have executed an
unregistered agreement of sale dated 19.03.2009 and received
an earnest money of Rs.4,50,000/- and balance payable is
Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration and in the agreement, a
stipulation is made that after getting the document of sketch,
the sale deed will be executed. It is also the contention of the
plaintiff in the suit that he was always ready and willing to
perform his part of contract. When the defendants did not come
forward to execute the sale deed, he had issued the legal notice
and then without any other alternative, filed the suit for the
relief of specific performance. The defendants appeared and
filed written statement stating that no such agreement was
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
executed and the plaintiff was having a chit transaction with
one Venkatesh and handed over the blank stamp papers to the
plaintiff and he was made use of the same for the purpose of
filing this case and created the sale agreement and filed the
suit.
4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of
the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead
their evidence. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff
examined himself as PW1 and also examined two attesting
witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and also examined the advocate
who identified the signatures as PW4 and also examined the
notary as PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13.
On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1
and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D5. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record particularly, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 comes to
the conclusion that attesting witnesses evidence is very clear
with regard to the very execution of the document. In
paragraphs 21 to 23 also taken note of admission on the part of
DW1 that signature belongs to him as well as he had signed the
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
said document on the very date of the agreement. The defence
that they have produced the documents of Ex.D1 to D5 but that
is not in respect of transaction between the plaintiff and
defendants. The defence which was taken by the defendants
also discussed in paragraph 27 and comes to the conclusion
that agreement was executed and paid the amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- and balance is payable only Rs.50,000/- and
answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in the
negative and Issue No.2 is also taken note of with regard to the
readiness and willingness is concerned that notice was issued
before the period of 3 years even though there was no time
limit which is the essence of the contract and answered Issue
No.2 in the affirmative and granted the relief of specific
performance.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.76/2020. The First
Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available
on record, formulated the Points with regard to the execution of
sale agreement and also whether it was a transaction of
collusion between Purushotham and Venkatesh and whether
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
Ex.P1 was created and whether the plaintiff proved the
willingness to get the relief of specific performance. The First
Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record answered the Point Nos.1 to 3 as
negative and answered Point No.4 as affirmative. The First
Appellate Court while answering the Points, in detail taken note
of the contention of the respective parties and particularly
taken note of Ex.D1 to D5 in paragraphs 23 to 26 and also
Ex.P4 reply in respect of the transaction between Venkatesh
and Pushotham in paragraph 27 and in paragraph 30, taken
note of contents of page No.1 and 3 wherein the contentions of
the appellants that recital of documents so prepared to adjust
the area upto the place where these defendant Nos.1 and 2
have put their signatures seems to be very unreasonable. On
careful perusal of page No.3, the signature of the plaintiff,
defendant No.1 and 2 as well as witnesses are signed by
leaving equal space between their signatures. The First
Appellate Court also considered the evidence of PW2 and PW3
in paragraph 32 and also discussed in detail the answer elicited
from the mouth of PW1 in cross-examination in paragraphs 33
and 34 and comes to the conclusion that evidence of DW1 is
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
very clear that he admits the signature and also the date of
agreement as 19.03.2009. Though he contend that Ex.P1 is
created and manipulated by plaintiff colluding with
Purushotham and Venkatesh, in order to substantiate the
same, nothing is placed on record. Hence, accepted the
reasoning given by the Trial Court. Even discussion was also
made with regard to the readiness in paragraph 45 and
confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by
the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second
appeal is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the appellants counsel
before this Court that both the Courts have committed an error
and counsel would vehemently contend that payment of
earnest money is by way of cash. The counsel would
vehemently contend that though specific defence was taken
before the Trial Court that it was a transaction not between the
plaintiff and defendants and both of them are strangers and
there was earlier transaction between Purushotham and
Venkatesh and made use of the blank stamp paper given to the
plaintiff in connection with chit transaction, the same has not
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
been considered by both Trial Court and Appellate Court. The
counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts were not
right in holding that suit as brought by the plaintiff was within
the period of limitation and also counsel would contend that
both the Courts were not right in holding that stamp duty and
penalty on the suit agreement at Ex.P1 is sufficient and both
the Courts committed an error in not properly appreciating the
evidence when there was only a cash transaction and payment
of Rs.4,50,000/-. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 not inspires
the confidence of the Court. The counsel also vehemently
contend that PW2 not spoken anything about the fact that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 were present at the time of execution of
the agreement. All these factors were not taken note of by the
Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. hence, there is a
perversity in the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court.
7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that false defence was
taken and the same is not substantiated by placing any cogent
evidence. The counsel would vehemently contend that stamp
papers are purchased on the same day of agreement and
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
agreement was also prepared on the same day and sale
agreement was also executed not only on behalf of the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 but also on behalf of the minor children
and defendant No.1 represented on behalf of the minor also
and also received the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as against the
sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same has been
appreciated by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court also reassessed the material on
record within the scope of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and not
found any error on the part of the Trial Court and confirmed the
same. Hence no ground is made out to admit the appeal and
frame substantial question of law.
8. Having heard the appellants' counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent and also on perusal of the
material on record, it discloses that specific pleading of the
plaintiff is that there was an agreement between the parties to
sell the property and sale consideration is Rs.5,00,000/- and
out of that, Rs.4,50,000/- was paid and balance payable only
Rs.50,000/- and the same is subject to providing of document,
sale deed would be executed. However, when the defendants
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
did not come forward to execute the sale deed with document,
the plaintiff given notice and then filed the suit. The very
defence of the appellants is also that the blank stamp paper
which was given in favour of Purushotham and Venkatesh in
connection with chit transaction was misused. Having taken
note of the pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court given
an opportunity to both the plaintiff and defendants to
substantiate their contention and PW1 is the plaintiff and he
also examined the two attesting witnesses as PW2 and PW3.
Though counsel appearing for the appellants brought to notice
of this Court that PW2 not stated anything about the very
presence of defendant Nos.1 and 2. But on perusal of the
evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are the attesting witnesses have
categorically deposed the place of the agreement which was
taken place between them and also spoken with regard to the
payment of Rs.4,50,000/- in their presence. Apart from that in
the cross examination of DW1, he categorically admits his
signature and also admits the date of agreement and he had
signed the Ex.P1 on the date of agreement on 19.03.2009.
Even though defence was taken that the sale agreement was
not executed, not explained that under what circumstances, the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
agreement was executed on the particular day i.e., on
19.03.2009 but only contention was taken that there was a
transaction between him and Purushotham and Venkatesh and
also there was a proceeding between them under Section 138
of N.I. Act. No doubt, 'D' series are also produced before the
Court but the same is not in respect of the plaintiff/respondent
and the same was in respect of the transaction between him
and other persons i.e., Purushotham and Venkatesh. When
particular defence was taken by the defendants, they have to
probabilise their case by placing material on record. Except
placing the document of transaction between the Purushotham
and Venkatesh and notices are exchanged between them with
regard to the chit transaction is concerned, nothing is placed on
record before the Court to show that he was a subscriber of the
chit with Purushotham and Venkatesh and even not examined
any witnesses with regard to the chit transaction is concerned
that other subscriber are also the members of the chit
transaction. Except taking that defence, nothing is placed on
record. The Trial Court taken note of evidence available on
record, particularly the evidence of PW1 to PW3, apart from
that, PW4 who had identified the signature and notary who has
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
examined as PW5. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
except self-styled evidence of DW1, nothing is placed on
record. The evidence of witnesses were also taken note of by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and comes to
the conclusion that in order to probabilise their defence that it
was not the sale transaction, nothing is placed on record.
Hence, I do not find any error on the part of Trial Court and the
Appellate Court in considering the material on record. While
admitting the second appeal, the Court has to find that there is
a perversity in the finding of both the Courts. When the same is
not found and factual aspects as well as question of law was
considered in a proper perspective, admitting the second
appeal does not arise at all. The very contention that suit is
barred by limitation also cannot be accepted for the reason that
time is not the essence of the contract in terms of Ex.P1 and
also the notice was given within 3 years. The other contention
of the appellants' counsel that even though Trial Court directed
to deposit the amount within 3 months, the said amount was
not deposited within time but it was deposited after 6 months
and the same cannot be a ground to comes to other conclusion.
But the fact is that he has deposited the amount, though it is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48774
HC-KAR
belated deposit, the same cannot be a ground to admit the
appeal and frame the substantial question of law. Thus, it is not
a case to invoke Section 100 of CPC.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
