Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaramegowda vs Smt Lakshmamma on 3 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
RSA No. 1166 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDARAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O MUGEGOWDA,
R/AT DODDEGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE,
GUNGRAL CHATRA DHAKALE,
KALLUR POST, YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK -570001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
Location: HIGH DEAD BY HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
2. SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
3. RATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
RSA No. 1166 of 2022
HC-KAR
NAGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
DEAD BY HER LRS
4. HARISHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE NAGAMMA,
R/AT CHANDGAL VILLAGE,
HEBBAL HOBLI,
CIRCLE EASTERN SIDE ROAD,
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.
5. PREMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
6. KAMALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
7. CHANDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
ALL ARE R/AT DODDEGOWDANA KOPPALU,
GUNGRAL CHATRA DHAKALE,
KALLUR POST, YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK-570001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.52/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.770/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
RSA No. 1166 of 2022
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
3. The suit is filed for the relief of specific performance
by the plaintiff based on the document Ex.P.9 contending that
defendant Nos.2 and 3 along with their father executed
agreement of sale dated 10.12.2004 to sell the suit schedule
property in his favour for an amount of Rs.70,000/-. It is the
case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 and 3 received the
entire sale consideration on the date of agreement itself and
delivered physical possession of the suit schedule property and
that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform
his part of contract.
4. On the other hand, defendant No.2 took the
contention that the plaintiff being the paternal uncle of
defendant No.2, obtained the LTM of Siddegowda, defendant
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
HC-KAR
Nos.2 and 3 assuring to prepare the Panchayath Palu Parikath
in respect of the suit schedule property and misused the same
for creating the alleged sale agreement. It is the further
contention that after the death of Siddegowda, the plaintiff
assuring to get the khatha of the suit schedule property
changing the second defendant's name, obtained some
signatures and LTMs on the blank papers and misused to get
the khatha changed.
5. Having taken note of the pleadings of the parties,
the Trial Court framed the issues and considering both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of the
answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1, which has been
extracted in paragraph No.29, wherein it is stated that even
though suit is filed for the relief of specific performance based
on the document which exists in his name, created the
document of gift deed in favour of his son and then in favour of
the wife of his son and got changed the khatha in respect of the
suit schedule property in the name of his daughter-in-law and
all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court in
paragraph Nos.30 and 31. Apart from that, while answering
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
HC-KAR
issue Nos.4 and 5, taken note that a defence was taken that
the documents are created and obtained the signature
fraudulently that Panchayath Palu Parikath will be done and
also for change of khatha and created the document of sale
agreement. Having taken note of the said defence, the Trial
Court answered issue Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the defendants
having taken note of fiduciary relationship between the parties,
the plaintiff being the paternal uncle of the defendants and
hence dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.52/2021. The First Appellate Court having re-
assessed the material available on record, particularly taking
note of the conduct of P.W.1, in paragraph No.17 discussed in
detail with regard to getting the document transferred by the
plaintiff and also creation of document of Ex.P.9 as well as
other documents of gift deed in favour of his son and interalia,
his son to his wife though the physical possession was handed
over to the defendants, which fact is also candidly admitted by
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
HC-KAR
P.W.1 and taking into note of these material, dismissed the
appeal.
7. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error and
fails to take note of the document of Ex.P.9 sale agreement.
The learned counsel contend that both the Courts committed an
error in dismissing the suit and failed to appreciate the
admission of the defendants and also committed an error in not
granting the relief of specific performance invoking Section 20
of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel contend that the
finding that Ex.P.9 is a void document obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation is also erroneous.
9. Having considered the material available on record,
particularly the fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and
the defendants, Ex.P.9 sale agreement is produced before the
Court. The Trial Court, particularly taken note of the admission
on the part of P.W.1, which has been extracted in paragraph
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
HC-KAR
No.29 and also discussion is made in paragraph Nos.30 and 31.
The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.17 taken note of
the contention of the appellant and considering the grounds
urged in the appeal memo, re-assessed the material available
on record. While granting the relief of specific performance,
first the Court has to take note of the conduct of the plaintiff,
who seeks the relief of specific performance and the discretion
also to be exercised under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act
and here is a case of manipulation of document. Even when
the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, the
plaintiff got created the document of gift deed in favour of his
son and the son in turn created the document in favour of his
wife and the plaintiff even got changed the khatha in favour of
his daughter-in-law. All these factors clearly discloses that it is
not a case for granting the relief of specific performance.
Considering the material available on record, the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court taken note of the evidence
available on record and properly appreciated the material and it
does not require any interference of this Court. Both the
question of fact and question of law are taken note of while
exercising the discretion of granting the relief of specific
NC: 2025:KHC:43972
HC-KAR
performance and hence no ground is made out to invoke
Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
