Karnataka High Court
Sri N Venugopal vs Smt.Yeshodamma on 4 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
RSA No. 1630 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. 1630 OF 2024 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI N VENUGOPAL,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO.299,
VENKATADRINILAYA,
P.C. EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR POST OFFICE, KOLAR 563102.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SMT. N.V. JAMUNA,
D/O LATE N VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT 41, SRIRAM NAGAR,
OORGAUMPET, K.G.F-563 120.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT. YESHODAMMA,
W/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
2. SRI M NAGABUSHAN,
S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. SRI M SHAHSIKUMAR,
S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
RSA No. 1630 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SMT. VANITHA,
W/O KAVERAPPA,
D/O LATE G MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT 54, 3RD FLOOR, KHB COLONY,
KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560038.
5. SRI K. SHANKAR,
S/O LATE KANNAIAH CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT 'O' DANIEL ROAD,
ANDERSONPET, KGF-563 113.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED IN
RA NO.207/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND PRL.JMFC, KGF, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2022
PASSED IN OS NO.331/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF.
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:44314
RSA No. 1630 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is listed for admission.
3. This second appeal is filed against the
concurrent findings. The factual matrix of the case of
plaintiff while seeking the relief of specific performance, is
that the defendants have executed an agreement of sale
dated 28.02.2005, agreeing to sell the suit schedule
property for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- and also they have
received a sum of ₹4,00,000/- towards part performance
of contract and also it is the case of the plaintiff that he is
always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
Defendants appeared and filed the written statement
contending that suit is barred by law of limitation. The trial
Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in
the negative and also answered Additional Issue No.1 in
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
by limitation since agreement is of the year 2005, the suit
is filed in 2011 and time is the essence of contract. Apart
from that, the trial Court also comes to the conclusion
that the very agreement and payment of ₹4,00,000/- as
contended by the plaintiff is not proved as well as the
ready and willingness is also not proved and dismissed the
suit.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the trial Court, RA No. 207/2022 was filed before the
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court formulated the
points; whether the trial Court comes to an erroneous
conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove due execution
of sale agreement in his favour by defendant No. 1;
whether the trial Court further erred in holding that the
sale agreement in question is created and concocted
document; whether the trial Court further erred in holding
that plaintiff has also failed to prove his readiness and
willingness; whether the trial Court further erred in
holding that the suit of plaintiff is barred by law of
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
limitation; whether the trial Court has not properly
appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and
whether the trial Court also erred in dismissing the suit of
the plaintiff and refusing to grant the relief. The
Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and
documentary evidence available on record answered point
Nos. 1 to 5 in the negative and so also point Nos.7 to 9
and answered point No.6 in the affirmative with regard to
the delay in filing the appeal is concerned and condoned
the delay.
5. The counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that both the Courts have committed an error in
not appreciating the material available on record and
counsel also vehemently contended that when defendant
No.2 admitted the very execution of agreement, at least,
the trial Court and Appellate Court ought to have ordered
to refund the advance amount of ₹4,00,000/- and the
same was not done. Learned counsel for appellant
vehemently contends that in spite of an agreement was
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
executed on 20.08.2005 by defendant No.1 by agreeing
to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of
₹5,00,000/-, ought not to have dismissed the suit. The
finding of the trial Court that defendant No.1 has not
executed any agreement of sale much less Ex.P2 in
favour of plaintiff by receiving advance consideration is not
justified and plaintiff has failed to prove that he is ever
ready and willing to perform his part of contract is also
erroneous and hence, this court has to admit to frame the
substantial question of law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would vehemently contend that first of all, the alleged sale
agreement is a created document and according to the
plaintiff, the sale agreement was executed defendant No.2
with the forged signature of defendant No.1 and there was
no any cordial relationship between the defendant Nos. 1
and 2 and property is also standing in the name of the
defendant No. 1. When such being the case, the very
execution of sale agreement by the person who is not
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
authorized or having any right to execute the sale
agreement does not arise. Both the Courts taken note of
the said fact into consideration, dismissed the suit and it
does not requires any interference.
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondents and having
considered the material available on record, it is not in
dispute that property originally belongs to defendant No.1,
who is the wife of defendant No.2 and also the plaintiff has
not placed any documentary proof before the Court that
wife has authorized defendant No.2 to execute the sale
agreement. It is also important to note for having made
the payment is also concerned, when the property stands
in the name of the wife, plaintiff ought to have paid the
sale consideration to defendant No.1 and not to defendant
No.2 and the very contention of the defendants is that the
said document was created and hence, the very contention
of the appellant's counsel that both the Courts ought to
have ordered for refund of money also cannot be
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
accepted, for the reason that, the person who had
executed allegedly the sale agreement was not having any
authorization and also he was not having any title to
execute the sale agreement and while entering into an
agreement itself, the plaintiff ought to have verified the
title. Apart from that, counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that both
defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are not in cordial
relationship and also counsel would vehemently contend
that when there was no any sale agreement, the question
of executing the Sale Deed by granting the relief of
specific performance does not arise. It is also important to
note that, admittedly, the sale agreement was entered in
the year 2005, time is the essence of contract and that
one year period is mentioned in the sale agreement. But
suit was filed on 04.07.2011 and when the time is the
essence of contract, plaintiff ought to have filed the suit
within 3 years but not filed the same. With regard to the
limitation also, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief
NC: 2025:KHC:44314
HC-KAR
having taken note of material available on record. Both the
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have taken note
of factual aspects of the case and question of law. Hence,
I do not find any ground to admit and frame any
substantive question of law.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
tsn*
