IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200081 OF 2020 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SUBHAS S/O BASAPPA JUMANAL AGES ABOUT 66 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INGALESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: B. BAGEWADI, DIST: BIJAPUR.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SIDDAPPA S/O GURALINGAPPA BORAGI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. MASBINAL, NOW AT ALUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: BIJAPUR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BASAVANA BAGEWADI IN O.S.NO.62/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DECREED THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

2. This regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the CPC’ for short) is by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2020 in O.S.No.62/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavan Bagevadi (‘Trial Court’ for short) whereby suit filed by him for specific performance of sale agreement dated 13.06.2011, against the defendant came to be dismissed.

3. It is contended by the plaintiff that, defendant being the owner of suit schedule property agreed to sell the same to him for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and received advance of Rs.6,00,000/-. He agreed to execute regular sale deed as and when requested by the plaintiff, by receiving balance sale consideration and to put him in possession. Defendant also agreed to clear the encumbrances over the suit schedule property. As per the instructions of the defendant, sale agreement was prepared by the scribe in the presence of his wife and attesting witnesses. After receiving advance of Rs.6,00,000/-, defendant executed the sale agreement in the presence of plaintiff and witnesses. Attesting witnesses have also signed the document. However, despite repeated request and demand by the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses, defendant failed to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. All along plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He got issued legal notice dated 07.01.2014, calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. Instead the defendant has sent an evasive reply and hence, the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement admitting that, he is the owner in possession of suit schedule property, but denied that he has executed the sale agreement dated 13.06.2011 and received advance of Rs.6,00,000/-. He has alleged that the sale agreement is a concocted document.

5. Inter-alia defendant has taken up a defence that, on 27.05.2010 he executed a registered sale agreement in favour of Sidagondappa-the brother of plaintiff, agreeing to sell suit schedule property. As per the said agreement, Sidagondappa was required to pay balance of Rs.15,000/- and get regular sale deed executed within 3 months. After 3 months when defendant requested Sidagondappa to pay the balance of Rs.15,000/- and to get the sale deed executed, he did not come forward and therefore, defendant cancelled the said transaction.

5.1 Further defendant has alleged that, Sidagondappa did not take any steps till September, 2013.

In the third week of September, 2013 the said Sidagondappa and his brother Nanagouda with the help of goonda elements tried to kidnap the defendant and get sale deed executed by force. In this regard, defendant filed complaint. When Sidagondappa and Nanagouda tried to obstruct the possession of defendant he filed O.S.No.562/2013 and secured temporary injunction. Pla