IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

R.S.A.NO.100528/2014 (SP)

BETWEEN

NAGAPPA RAMAPPA JOPADI,

AGE : 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O KALLAPUR, POST: RAMAPUR,

TQ: DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

...APPELLANT

(BY

SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI,)

SRI D.B.KALLANAGOUDA,

SRI M.B.MADANALLI, ADVOCATES)

AND

MADIWALAPPA SHIVAPPA SHIDDAPUR,

AGE : 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O KALLAPUR, POST: RAMAPUR,

TQ: DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

…. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING THIS COURT TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 28.02.2014 PASSED

IN R.A.NO.280/2012 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

DHARWAD AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

17.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.273/2004 BY THE PRINCIPAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD AND PASS SUCH

OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

: JUDGMENT :

The

captioned

second

appeal

is

filed

by

unsuccessful defendant who has questioned the

judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court

wherein the appeal is allowed and the suit filed by

respondent/plaintiff is decreed granting discretionary

relief of specific performance of contract.

2.

The facts leading to the above said case are

as follows:

Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific

performance of contract in O.S.No.272/2004 by

specifically contending that the present appellant/

defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for

sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- and received a sum

of Rs.60,000/- as an advance sale consideration. The

respondent/plaintiff further contended that on the

same day, an agreement was executed and it was

agreed that the balance sale consideration would be

paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed.

3

Respondent-plaintiff

further

contended

that

the

possession was handed over pursuant to execution of

suit

agreement.

Respondent-Plaintiff

further

contended that he was ever ready and willing to

perform his part of contract. Though several demands

were made, the appellant-defendant did not come

forward to perform his part of contract. Therefore a

legal notice was issued on 11.07.2004 calling upon the

appellant-defendant

accept

the

balance

sale

consideration and execute registered sale deed. The

appellant-defendant refused to accept the notice and

therefore the respondent-plaintiff filed present suit.

3.

The

appellant-defendant

on

receipt

of

summons contested the proceedings and stoutly

denied the entire averments made in the plaint. There

is totally denial insofar as execution of suit agreement

is

concerned.

The

appellant-defendant

has

also

specifically contended that actual market value of the

suit schedule property is more than Rs.2,00,000/-.

4

Further contention was also taken that he is not the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the

subject matter of suit agreement is a joint family

ancestral property and therefore requested the Court

to dismiss the suit.

4.

The Trial Court having assessed oral and

documentary evidence, answered Issue No.1 to 4 in

the affirmative by holding that respondent-plaintiff has

proved due execution of agreement dated 10.08.2001

and payment of earnest money of Rs.60,000/-. The

Trial Court also recorded a finding that the appellant-

defendant delivered possession pursuant to receipt of

earnest money of Rs.60,000/- on 10.08.2001. The

Trial Court has also recorded a categorical finding that

respondent-plaintiff has proved that he was always

ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

However, while dealing with issue No.5, the Trial Court

was of the view that the suit schedule property

admittedly is the