Karnataka High Court
Sri G S Hanumantha Reddy vs Sri B R Srinivas on 5 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
RSA No. 854 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.854 OF 2024 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SRI. SATISH
S/O G.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. SMT. ASHA
D/O G.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4. SRI. CHETAN KUMAR
S/O G.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ALL ARE RESIDING AT GUNUR VILLAGE
KARNATAKA GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 087.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGANATH K.M. ,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT KADUBISANAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
RSA No. 854 of 2024
HC-KAR
PANATHUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 087.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023
PASSED IN R.A.NO.76/2019 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.473/2009 ON THE FILE OF C/C II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
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. I have heard learned
counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-
respondent.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding of the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that they have filed the suit against the
defendant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
suit schedule property in terms of reconveyance deed dated
23.11.2002. According to them, they were the absolute owners
in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
They availed loan from defendant to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-
during 2002 and towards security for repayment of the said
amount as per his demand, they have executed sale deed
dated 21.11.2022 showing as nominal for sale consideration of
Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, it is stated that defendant has executed
the deed of reconveyance on 23.11.2002 and suit was filed in
2009 after lapse of 7 years and suit is also barred by limitation.
4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant
appeared and filed the written statement denying the case of
the plaintiffs and contended that he has not executed any deed
of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiffs dated 23.11.2002.
5. The parties were given an opportunity to lead
evidence. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, examined
plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1
to P10 and also examined one witness as P.W.2. On the other
hand, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked
the documents as Exs.D1 to D10.
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, not accepted the case of the plaintiffs,
particularly extracting the answer elicited from the mouth of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and comes to the conclusion that even if such
an agreement was executed, the said recital would have been
found in the document of Ex.P2. The Trial Court in paragraph
No.24, comes to the conclusion that cross-examination of
P.W.2 clearly establishes that P.W.2 except identifying his
signature on Ex.P2, he does not know anything in respect of
Ex.P1 and comes to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.2 is
not supported by P.W.1 and disbelieved the case of the
plaintiffs.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First
Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in
the appeal memo formulated the points whether the
appellants/plaintiffs were able to prove that the sale deed dated
21.11.2002 executed in favour of the defendant is only a
nominal sale deed and the same was executed as a security
towards the loan availed by the plaintiffs from the defendant.
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
and also raised the point for consideration whether the plaintiffs
were able to prove that the defendant had executed agreement
of reconveyance dated 23.11.2002 and had agreed to re-
convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs, whether the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference
and also considered the applications i.e., I.A.No.2 filed under
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC and I.A.No.3 filed under Order 6
Rule 17 and Order 41 read with Section 151 of CPC and all the
points for consideration are answered as 'negative'. On re-
appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, in
paragraph No.18 taken note that P.W.1 has admitted that in
the sale deed dated 21.11.2002 produced at Ex.P1, the sale
consideration is mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/-. He has admitted
that plaintiffs executed the said sale deed in favour of the
defendant. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he
had no problem to get the agreement of reconveyance
executed on the same day, when the sale deed was executed.
Further, P.W.1 has admitted that based on the registered sale
deed, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule
property. The evidence of the plaintiffs and the documents
brought on record does not inspire the confidence of the Court
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
to believe the plaintiffs version that the sale deed dated
21.11.2002 is only a nominal sale deed and also taken note of
Section 58(c) as well as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is
filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in his argument would contend that both the
Courts without properly considering and appreciating Ex.P2-
Deed of Reconveyance dated 23.11.2022 in favour of the
plaintiffs which clearly discloses that defendant has agreed to
re-convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on
repayment of the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at
2% per annum was not considered. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that when an application was filed before
the Trial Court to send the document of Ex.P1 as well as Ex.P2
to the handwriting expert, no order was passed by the Trial
Court and proceeded to pass order on merits. The counsel also
vehemently contend that the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court erred in believing the say of the defendant that he has
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
not executed Ex.P2 without properly appreciating the evidence
let in by the plaintiffs and attesting witness P.W.2 and the very
reasoning given by both the Courts that evidence of P.W.2 not
supports the case of P.W.1 is erroneous. Hence, this Court has
to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of
law.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for caveator-
respondent would vehemently contend that when the sale deed
was executed two days earlier to the date of alleged document
of re-conveyance deed, what prevented the appellants to
execute the document in terms of Ex.P2 on the very same day
and the same was observed by the Trial Court. Apart from that,
the counsel also vehemently contend that specific defence was
taken that no such agreement was executed in terms of Ex.P2
and the plaintiffs have approached the Court after the delay of
7 years by filing the suit that too, seeking the relief of specific
performance and the same was also taken note of by the Trial
Court and discussed in paragraph No.24 of the judgment,
wherein the trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and
the First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the material on
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
record and comes to the conclusion, particularly in paragraph
No.18, what prevented the plaintiffs from getting the document
subsequent to the date of sale deed and also taken note of
Section 58, particularly Section 58(c) of the Transfer of
Property Act. If really, it was a loan transaction, the document
would have come into existence on the very same day. Hence,
no case is made out to admit the second appeal and frame any
substantial question of law.
10. Having considered the pleadings of the plaintiffs as
well as the defendant, the plaintiffs relies upon the document of
Ex.P1 i.e., sale deed dated 21.11.2002 and also the agreement
dated 23.11.2002 and based on Ex.P2 seeks for the relief of
specific performance in respect of reconveyance deed executed
by the defendant. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants brought to notice of this Court that applications were
filed when the document of Ex.P2 was denied and the said
applications were not considered by the Trial Court. But, when
the appellants filed such applications, ought to have insisted
the Trial Court to pass order on the said applications and
instead, proceeded to conduct the case and when the result
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
was against them, now canvassing the argument before this
Court that applications were not considered. Apart from that
the Trial Court also taken note of in paragraph No.24 that there
was an admission on the part of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that no
corollary evidence before the Court in support of the case of
plaintiffs and considering the evidence of P.W.2 that he does
not know anything in respect of Ex.P1 and even though P.W.1
deposed that during the execution of Ex.P1,
Venkataramanareddy and Reddappa of Valepura and Gunjur
were present, but, P.W.2 in his cross examination portion,
contravenes the case of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court
also taken note of the fact that evidence of P.W.2 is not in
consonance with the evidence of P.W.1 and not supports the
case of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court having
considered the material available on record, particularly in
paragraph No.18 also made an observation that, if really it was
a loan transaction and sale deed was executed on the very
same day, the document of Ex.P2 would have come into
existence, but, the date of document i.e., Ex.P2 is subsequent
to two days of the sale deed. Apart from that, the First
Appellate Court also taken note of Section 58(c) of the Transfer
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
of Property Act and having considered both oral and
documentary evidence, when the plaintiffs were unable to
prove their case that document of sale deed was only a nominal
sale deed and except examining P.W.2 and whose evidence
also not supports the case of P.W.1 that he was not aware of
anything about Ex.P1 and when such being the case and the
pleading was made that the said document is only a nominal
sale deed in favour of the defendant, there must be cogent
evidence before the Court that it was a nominal sale deed and
the same was not proved. Hence, both the Courts have
considered the material available on record in a proper
perspective and no perversity is found in appreciating the
evidence available on record. When such being the case,
question of admitting the second appeal and framing the
substantial question of law does not arise and both question of
fact and question of law are considered by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any
ground to admit and frame any substantial question of law.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44688
HC-KAR
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
