[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Chikkathayamma vs Sri. Sardhar Pasha on 9 March, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB
                                                      R.F.A. No.2742/2024


                  HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                          PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                            AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                           REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2742/2024 (SP)


                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
                       W/O LATE DODDANINGASHETTY
                       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA       2.    SRI. D. MAHADEVA
BAHAR KHANAM           S/O LATE DODDANINGASHETTY
Location: HIGH         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        3.    SRI. PRAKASH .D
                       S/O LATE DODDANINGASHETTY
                       AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

                 4.    SMT. GOWRI
                       D/O LATE DODDANINGASHETTY
                       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

                 5.    SMT. BHAGYA
                       W/O SIDDARAJU
                       D/O LATE DODDANINGASHETTY
                       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

                       APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
                       R/AT. H.NO.891, CHIKKAMMANA DEVASTANA
                       BEEDHI, RAMMANAHALLI POST
                       KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 019.

                 6.    SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
                       W/O CHIKKANINGASHETTY
                           -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB
                                     R.F.A. No.2742/2024


HC-KAR




     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     R/AT. H.NO.190, ANCHAYA ROAD
     RAMMANAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 019.

7.   SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA
     W/O. NANJUNDASHETTY
     D/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     R/AT. KOWDAWADI
     CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
     AND DISTRICT-571 115.

8.   SMT. SUNDARI
     W/O BASAVARAJU
     D/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.883, NEAR CHIKKAMMA DEVASTANA
     RAMMANAHALLI, KALYANAGIRI
     KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU 570 019.

9.   SRI. RAJESH
     S/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.190, ANCHYA ROAD
     MUDALAKERI, RAMMANAHALLI
     MYSURU 570 019.

10. SMT. PREMA
    W/O NAGARAJU
    D/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
    R/AT. H.NO.43, NAYAKARA BEEDHI
    VARUNA HOBLI, VAJAMANGALA POST
    VAJAMANGALA, MYSURU 570 026.

11. SMT. BHAGYA
    W/O NATARAJA
    D/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
    AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
    R/AT. 2ND BLOCK, RAMMANAHALLI
    KASABA HOBLI, KALYANAGIRI
                            -3-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB
                                       R.F.A. No.2742/2024


HC-KAR




    MYSURU 570 019.

12. SRI. MAHESH
    S/O LATE CHIKKANINGASHETTY
    AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
    R/AT. H.NO.190, ANCHYA ROAD
    RAMMANAHALLI, MYSURU -570 019.

                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV.,)


AND:

SRI. SARDHAR PASHA
S/O AMEER JOHN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT. D.NO.205
KAMANKEREHUNDI GRAMA
RAMMANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT.
                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADV.,)


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.09.2023 IN O.S.NO.492/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.02.2026,  COMING   ON   FOR  PRONOUNCEMENT     OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                             -4-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB
                                       R.F.A. No.2742/2024


HC-KAR




                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendants

challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2023

passed in O.S.No.492/2017 by the Court of III Additional

Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru (for short 'the Trial

Court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal

are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.492/2017

seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement

of sale dated 11.06.2015. The defendants filed a written

statement denying the averments in the plaint and sought

for dismissal of the suit. The Trial Court, on consideration

of the evidence and the material on record, proceeded to

decree the suit by directing the defendants to execute the

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of

the registered agreement for sale dated 11.06.2015, by

receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.14,75,000/-

within 3 months from the date of the passing of the

judgment. Being aggrieved, the defendants are in appeal.

4. Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel appearing

for the appellants-defendants submits that the Trial Court

has failed to consider the material on record in its proper

perspective. It is submitted that the suit schedule

property was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for a total

consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- but the plaintiff has

fraudulently got the registered agreement of sale dated

11.06.2015 by undervaluing the property at

Rs.22,75,000/- in order to avoid the payment of stamp

duty for the full market value. It is further submitted that

the sale consideration of the property as per the

agreement of sale is highly undervalued and if the

defendants are forced to execute the sale deed as per the

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

said value, the same would result in great injustice to the

defendants. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, Sri.Abhinav Ramanand. A, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent supports the

impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the

Trial Court has rightly appreciated the law on the point

and proceeded to decree the suit on merits. It is

submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered that

the plaintiff has proved the registered agreement of sale

dated 11.06.2015. The Trial Court has further considered

the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his

part of the contract and decreed the suit, which does not

call for any interference. It is also submitted that Section

92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (for short, 'the Act')

clearly states that when the terms of any contract are

reduced in the form of a document, then any oral

agreement or statement contradicting from its terms shall

not be accepted. It is contended that the appeal is

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

rendered infructuous as the Court Commissioner in the

Court proceedings, executed the sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellants-defendants, the learned counsel

for respondent-plaintiff and meticulously perused the

material available on record. We have given our anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced on both the

sides.

7. The point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and

decree calls for any interference?"

8. The material on record indicates that the

defendants are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.67/2

measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated at Rammanahalli

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The defendants

executed a registered agreement of sale date 11.06.2015

for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,75,000/-. Pursuant

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

to the said agreement, the defendants received a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and agreed to

execute the sale deed within 6 months by receiving the

balance sale consideration. The plaintiff approached the

defendants seeking to execute the sale deed by receiving

the balance sale consideration but the same was

consistently postponed. The plaintiff later issued a legal

notice dated 03.05.2016 calling upon the defendants to

execute the sale deed. The defendants sent reply to the

said notice and in turn, the plaintiff sent a further reply to

the same.

9. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.492/2017

seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale

dated 11.06.2015. The defendants filed a written

statement denying the averments in the plaint. The

plaintiff adduced evidence by examining himself as PW-1,

one other as PW-2 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to

Ex.P18, whereas the defendants examined a witness as

DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1. The Trial Court, after

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

considering the evidence and the material on record,

decreed the suit by directing the defendants to execute

the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms

of the registered agreement of sale dated 11.06.2015 by

receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.14,75,000/-

within 3 months from the date of passing of the judgment.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants is that the consideration for sale of the property

was Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the plaintiff has fraudulently

registered the agreement of sale at Rs.22,75,000/-. The

Trial Court, while considering the said contention has

clearly recorded a finding that no evidence or material on

record is placed to prove the said assertion of the

defendants. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the

plaintiff rightly placed reliance on Section 92 of the Act,

which is extracted below:

"92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. -

- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document,

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:

Proviso (1). -- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1 [want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.

Proviso (2). --The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.

Proviso (3). --The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.

Proviso (4). --The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract,

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14003-DB

HC-KAR

grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.

Proviso (5). -- Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.