Karnataka High Court
Smt. Uma vs Sri. Kyathanarayanaswamy on 4 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44457
RSA No. 1140 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. UMA,
W/O LATE PANDURANGA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.766, 28TH CROSS,
BTM LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560076.
REPRESENTED BY HER P.A. HOLDER,
SRI. D.R.JAIPRAKASH,
S/O LATE D.S.RAJARAO,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT DEVASTHANADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY L., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SRI. KYATHANARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT DEVASTHANADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44457
RSA No. 1140 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.04.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.131/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.165/2016
ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
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 in respect of the issue involved between the parties
whether the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court
answered the issue with regard to proving of the sale
agreement is concerned in the negative, but the First Appellate
Court having considered the agreement is a registered sale
agreement, comes to the conclusion that agreement is proved
and also payment of Rs.1,90,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/-
and held the same in the affirmative. The First Appellate Court
with regard to the readiness is concerned, answered the same
NC: 2025:KHC:44457
HC-KAR
partly in the affirmative. With regard to the limitation is
concerned, answered the same in the negative and while
passing an order, in paragraph No.37, taken note of the date of
agreement as 17.10.2007. Having perused the recital of
document Ex.P.6 sale agreement, time is the essence of
contract i.e., 3 years time is fixed and the same elapses on
17.10.2010. But the suit was admittedly filed on 30.03.2016
almost after 9 years and also discussed that as per first part of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the time is fixed for
performance of the contract, then suit has to be filed within 3
years from the date of expiry of the date fixed for performance
of the contract. In the case on hand, when the time is
stipulated and time is the essence of the contract, ought to
have filed the suit within 3 years and the same is not filed and
belatedly and hopelessly filed the suit after 9 years of
agreement and hence answered the point with regard to the
limitation is concerned in the negative.
3. Now the learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that when the Trial Court comes to the
conclusion that agreement was not proved and when the same
NC: 2025:KHC:44457
HC-KAR
is reversed by the First Appellate Court, atleast ought to have
passed an order for refund of amount. The learned counsel
would contend that substantial question of law has to be
framed with regard to refund of money is concerned and hence
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court is not in accordance with law.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is
an agreement and the agreement is also a registered sale
agreement and also amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid and
time is stipulated for a period of 3 years and when the time is
stipulated, ought to have filed the suit within 3 years in order
to avoid the limitation, but not filed the suit within 3 years.
The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that when
the time is stipulated and time is the essence of contract,
initiating the suit after 9 years is hopelessly barred by
limitation. When the suit is filed after 9 years and when the
time is stipulated for 3 years, the Trial Court rightly comes to
the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and the First
Appellate Court also confirmed the same. The Trial Court and
NC: 2025:KHC:44457
HC-KAR
the First Appellate Court have not committed any error, since
the appellant has approached the Court belatedly after 9 years
of sale agreement and when the same is barred by limitation,
the question of even passing any order for refund of amount
also does not arise. The very contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that this Court has to admit the appeal, frame
substantial question of law and issue notice against the
respondent cannot be accepted when the suit is not within
time. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and
frame any substantial question of law.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
