Karnataka High Court
Sri.Channappa S/O Annappa Hanchinal vs Sri.Mahadev S/O Shivanagouda ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100190 OF 2020 (SP-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2020
IN RFA NO. 100190 OF 2020 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT
SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
SRI. RAMAPPA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL,
DHARWAD
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2(a) SMT. SHRIDEVI
W/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2(b) KUMAR MAHANTESH
S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
2(c) KUMAR MAHESH
S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/AT NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(d) SMT. SAVITA
W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT TUBACHI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHADEV
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1(a) SRI. RAYAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1(b) SMT. KRISHNABAI
D/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
AND ALSO PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 02/11/2023.
2. SMT. PRAMILA
W/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND
ALSO AT PAGA GALLI,
JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
3. SRI. SHIVAGOUDA
S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND
ALSO AT PAGA GALLI,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), R1(B),
R2 & R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN
O.S.NO.45/2009 DATED 31.01.2020 AND DECREE THE SUIT BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RFA NO.100191 OF 2020 (SP) :
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT
SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
SRI. RAMAPPA
S/O. ANNAPPA HANCHINAL,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2(a) SMT. SHRIDEVI
W/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2(b) KUMAR MAHANTESH
S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
2(c) KUMAR MAHESH
S/O. RAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/AT NAGANUR P.K., TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS
PER COURT ORDER DATED 2/11/2023.
2(d) SMT. SAVITA
W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT TUBACHI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHADEV
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1(a) SRI. RAYAGOUDA
S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
AND ALSO AT PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
1(b) SMT. KRISHNABAI
D/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
R/AT. SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
AND ALSO PAGA GALLI, JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 02/11/2023.
2. SMT. PRAMILA
W/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND
ALSO AT PAGA GALLI,
JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
3. SRI. SHIVAGOUDA
S/O. MAHADEV NYAMAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: SAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587311 AND
ALSO AT PAGA GALLI,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a), R1(b),
R2 & R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN
O.S.NO.45/2009 DATED 31.01.2020 AND DECREE THE SUIT BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
RFA No. 100190 of 2020
C/W RFA No. 100191 of 2020
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree
dated 31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.45/2009 by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi1.
2. The appellants in both these appeals are the plaintiffs,
whereas the respondents are the defendants. The said suit was
instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of
the sale agreement and other reliefs in relation to the suit
schedule immovable property. The respondents/defendants not
only contested the suit by disputing and denying the various
allegations and claims made by the plaintiffs, but also filed a
counter claim seeking for a direction to the appellants/plaintiffs
to handover possession of the suit schedule properties to
defendant No.1.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
3. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement contesting
the suit and also made a counterclaim seeking a direction to the
plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit schedule properties
to him. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed separate written statements,
contesting the claims of the plaintiffs, and sought for dismissal of
the suit.
4. By the impugned judgement and decree, the Trial Court
rejected the prayer for specific performance sought for by the
appellants/plaintiffs and passed the following:
"ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance
stands dismissed.
However the plaintiffs claim regarding alternative
relief is allowed for Rs.3,05,650/- with interest at Rs.6%
per annum from the date of suit till realization.
The defendants are entitled to possession of suit
schedule properties within a week from date of this order.
The defendants are also entitled to mesne profit from
the date when possession became illegal. The defendants
are entitled to costs of proceedings.
Draw preliminary decree."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree,
insofar as it relates to denying the relief of specific performance
of contract, and directing grant of refund of ₹3,05,650/-, the
appellants have preferred RFA.No.100190/2020. Whereas,
RFA.No.100191/2020 has been preferred by the
appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and
decree insofar as it allows the counterclaim of the respondent
No.1/defendant No.1.
6. Since both these appeals arise out of a common
judgment passed between the same parties, they are taken up
together for consideration and are disposed of by this common
order.
7. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred
to as their respective ranks before the Trial Court.
8. A perusal of the material on record indicates that it is
the specific contention of the appellants that the defendants had
agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the
appellants/plaintiffs, commencing with a sale agreement dated
09.08.2002, executed by the defendants in favour of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
plaintiffs. This was followed by several transactions between the
parties, culminating in a final sale agreement dated 15.05.2006,
also said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of
the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were
always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
They issued a lawyer's notice dated 23.08.2007, which was
avoided by the defendants. In response, the defendants sent a
reply dated 30.08.2007 to the plaintiffs, who got issued a paper
publication dated 24.03.2009. After issuing another notice dated
03.03.2009, and since the defendants failed to come forward to
perform their part of the contract and execute a registered sale
deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were constrained to
institute the said suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs also
contended that the defendants had put them in actual and
physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties, in part performance of the contract.
9. As stated supra, the defendant No.1 and defendant
Nos.2 and 3 filed separate written statements. In the written
statement filed by defendant No.1, various allegations and claims
made by the plaintiffs were denied. The defendant No.1
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
specifically disputed the sale agreements as well as the alleged
payment of sale consideration by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
He also denied the factum of handing over possession of the suit
schedule properties and raised several contentions in support of
his defence, as set out in his written statement. In addition to
seeking dismissal of the suit, the defendant No.1 also filed a
counterclaim seeing for a direction to the plaintiffs to handover
possession of the suit schedule properties to him.
10. The defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement,
which was adopted by the defendant No.3, who also disputed
and denied the various allegations and claim made by the
plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the suit.
11. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court
framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that defeated Nos.1 & 2 have
executed agreement of sale dated: 09.08.2002 by
receiving earnest money of Rs.12,75,000/-?
2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they were/are
ready and willing to perform their part of contract?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
3. Whether suit is time barred as contended in para No.5?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
12. The plaintiffs have examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and
two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and documentary evidence at
Exs.P1 to Exs.P52 were marked on their behalf. The defendants
had got examined defendant No.1 as DW.1 and two witnesses as
DW.2 and DW.3 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D45 were marked on their
behalf.
13. After hearing the parties, the Trial court answered Issue
No.1 partly in the affirmative by holding that the sale agreement
dated 09.08.2002 was proved, but only a sum of ₹3,05,650/-
had been paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards
advance and part payment of the sale consideration. Although
the Trial Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation,
the Issue No.2, which related to the plaintiffs' readiness and
willingness, was answered against them by holding that the
plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of
contract and consequently, were not entitled to the discretionary
and equitable relief of specific performance. Accordingly, the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting only the relief of
refund of advance amount of ₹3,05,650/- together with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The Trial
Court also decreed the counterclaim put forth by defendant No.1
and directed the plaintiffs to handover possession of the suit
schedule properties to the defendants within one week from the
date of impugned judgment and decree.
14. As stated supra, the impugned judgment and decree
refusing specific performance sought for by the plaintiffs and
decreeing the counterclaim for possession, is assailed by the
appellants in the present appeal.
15. The points that arise for consideration in the present
appeals are:
1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting
the prayer for specific performance sought for by
the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to
the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not ready
and willing to perform their part of the contract?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing
the counter claim put forth by defendant No.1
against the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in
the present appeal?
Regarding Point No. 1 :
16. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that,
while it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they paid a
total sale consideration of ₹15,80,650/- in instalments during a
period 2002-06 out of a revised sale consideration of
₹34,20,650/-, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs paid only a sum of ₹3,05,650/- to the defendants and
did not accept the contentions of the plaintiffs as regards the
remaining sale consideration alleged to have been paid by them.
In this context, a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree
will indicate that while considering the said Issue No.1, the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the parties has not been
considered by the Trial Court in their proper perspective. In fact,
though the appellants/plaintiffs, had produced documentary
evidence in the form of Exs.P5 to P9, in order to substantiate
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
their contention regarding the sale transaction and the advance
sale consideration paid by them, the Trial Court has not
considered or appreciated the said documents in their proper
perspective.
17. On the other hand, instead of dealing with Issue Nos.1
to 4, which relate to different aspects pursuant to the rival
contentions put forth by the parties, the Trial Court clearly fell in
error in rendering composite findings on all issues, which is
sufficient to indicate that the Trial Court has not adequately and
appropriately considered the pleadings and the evidence adduced
by both the parties. It is also relevant to state that the Trial
Court does not render any finding as regards Ex.P.9 dated
15.05.2006, which is the last of the agreements relied upon by
the plaintiffs, which indicate that apart from the advance sale
consideration said to have been paid by the plaintiffs, a fixed
deposit standing in the name of the plaintiffs had been furnished
by the plaintiffs to the defendants towards the sale
consideration. Under these circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the non consideration of the material on
record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
would vitiate the impugned judgment and decree requiring the
same to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the
Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
18. As stated earlier, specific contentions have been put
forth by both the sides as regards execution of the agreements,
payment of sale consideration, etc., none of which have been
considered in proper perspective by the Trial Court and
consequently, we deem it just and appropriate to answer Point
No.1 by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and
remitting matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law. Point No.1 is answered
accordingly.
Regarding Point No.2 :
19. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that
pursuant to the agreement dated 09.08.2002, executed by the
defendants in favour of the plaintiffs, further sums of money
were paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and on 15.05.2006
(Ex.P9), the defendants executed an agreement reiterating the
agreement/transactions and receiving a fixed deposit in a sum of
₹12,00,000/- from the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants. As
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
stated supra, the Trial Court has not dealt with Ex.P9 dated
15.05.2006 nor rendered any findings in this regard. So also, the
Trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the
plaintiffs had issued lawyer's notice at Ex.P10 dated 23.08.2007
to the defendants which was not served upon them as can be
seen from the postal records at Exs.P11 to P26, which were also
not considered by the Trial Court. So also the reply dated
30.12.2008 at Ex.P.27 issued on behalf of the defendants as well
as the paper publication at Exs.P29, dated 24.03.2009 and the
notice dated 03.03.2009 at Ex.P30, immediately prior to the
institution of the suit filed on 26.05.2009 have also not been
considered by the Trial Court while recording the finding that the
plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of
contract. This non consideration of the pleadings and the
evidence of the parties in relation to the readiness and
willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to perform their part of
the contract is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the
impugned judgment and decree that deserves to be set aside
and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law on this score also.
Point No.2 is also accordingly answered.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.3 :
20. In his written statement, in addition to disputing and
denying the claim of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 specifically
put forth a counter claim seeking possession of the suit schedule
property from the plaintiffs. The relevant partition of the counter
claim put forth by defendant No.1 is as under:
"16. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation the
defendant by way of counter claim are seeking the actual
possession of the suit lands and further means profits from
the plaintiffs as owner of the lands. The defendants is paying
court fee on the counter claim u/s 29 r/w sec 7 (2) of KCF &
SV Act and have paid court fee on Rs.1000/-. They have
valued their claim for the past mesne profits for three years
at Rs.7,50,000/- and have paid court fee
18. Those allegations in the plaint which are not
specifically traversed in this written statement, may not be
constructed as admitted.
For the above stated reasons, it is prayed that the
plaintiffs suit be kindly dismissed and counter claim be
allowed directing the plaintiffs to hand over the possession
of the suit lands to the defendants alongwith past mesne
profits of Rs. 7,90,000/-and future mesne profits and costs
of the suit."
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
21. It is a matter of record that, to the aforesaid counter
claim put forth by defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have filed their
written statement dated 11.10.2019.
22. Despite the aforesaid pleadings of the parties in relation
to the counter claim and the written statement filed by the
plaintiffs to the counter claim, the Trial Court clearly fell in error
in not framing any issue in this regard and instead the Trial
Court proceeds to straight away allow and decree the counter
claim in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs without
there being any issue, reasoning, finding, observation etc., in
this regard.
23. Under these circumstances, we are on the considered
opinion that, the absence of issue, evidence, findings, reasoning,
etc., by the Trial Court in relation to the counter claim, which
was summarily decreed in favour of the defendant against the
plaintiffs, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court deserved to be set aside and the matter be remitted back
to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with
law. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
Regarding Point No.4 :
24. As stated herein before, we have already come to the
conclusion that the Trial Court did not consider the pleadings and
evidence of the parties before recording the finding as regards
the sale agreement/transactions and payment of advance sale
consideration by the plaintiffs to the defendants; so also the Trial
Court did not consider the material on record before passing the
impugned judgment and decree holding that the plaintiffs had
not established readiness and willingness to perform their part of
the contract and without raising / framing any issue and without
recording any findings / observations, the Trial Court proceeded
to decree the counter claim of the defendants against the
plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, having regard to the
various lacunae, omissions, errors, discrepancies, etc., in the
impugned judgment and decree, we are of the view that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the
Trial Court for reconsideration afresh by leaving/keeping all
issues open to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court afresh in
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. Point No.4 is
answered accordingly.
25. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. Both the appeals are hereby allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and decree dated
31.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.45/2009 are hereby
set aside.
3. Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for re-
consideration afresh in accordance with law.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial
Court on 27.10.2025 without awaiting further
notice from the Trial Court.
5. All rival contentions of the parties on all aspects of
the matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival
contentions.
6. Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to
adduce additional, oral or documentary evidence
in support of their respective claims.
7. The registry of this Court is directed to refund
entire Court fee paid by the appellants on both
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12963-DB
HC-KAR
RFA.No.100190/2020 and RFA.No.100191/2020
back to the appellants forthwith / immediately
without any delay.
8. Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellants /
plaintiffs to file application seeking refund of sum
of Rs.26,72,650/- paid by them before the
Competent Authority towards stamp duty and
penalty on 14.08.2018, in respect of the document
dated 09.08.2002 at Ex.P.5. If such
application/request is made, the competent
authority shall consider the said request and
proceed further in accordance with law and in
terms of Section 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act,
1957 and conclude the said proceedings as
expeditiously as possible.
In view of the disposal of both the appeals, pending
applications, if any in both the appeals do not survive for
consideration and same are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP,EM
