1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2014 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI.CHIKKABYLAPPA

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

S/O LATE BYLAPPA

NO.169, 'BASAVESHWARA NILAYA'

LAKSHMIPURA

VIDYARANYAPURA

BANGALORE - 560 097.

& APPELLANT

(BY SRI.MUKKANNAPPA.S.B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.M.RANGASWAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

S/O LATE MAYANNA

RESIDING AT GAJAGADAHALLI

MADURAI HOBLI

DODDABALLAPUR TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, THIS COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

Sri.Mukkannappa.S.B learned counsel for appellant

and Sri.R.S.Ravi learned counsel for respondent have

appeared in person.

This is an appeal from the Court of Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC, Doddaballapur.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3.

The facts of the case are simply stated as

under:-

It is stated that defendant is the absolute owner in

possession of land bearing Sy.No.37/1 measuring 6 Acres

5 Guntas situated at Gajagadahalli Village, Madhure Hobli,

Doddaballapur Taluk Bangalore. The defendant intended to

sell 2 acres of land in the said survey number since he was

in need of funds.

It is said that Plaintiff and defendant knew each

other hence the defendant agreed to sell 2 Acres of land in

3

favor of plaintiff. On 28.10.2005, the defendant entered

into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of 2 Acres

of land in Sy.No.37/1 for a sale consideration of

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) and paid the

advance of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) by

cash. The balance consideration amount was agreed to be

paid at the time of registration of the sale deed

It is pleaded that plaintiff was always ready and

willing to perform his part of the contract. On 22.09.2008,

the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant to execute

the absolute sale deed by accepting the balance sale

consideration. The defendant replied to the notice on

21.10.2008. But the plaintiff did not receive back the

postal acknowledgement regarding service of the said

notice on defendant.

Contending that he is always ready and willing to

perform his part of the contract but defendant never came

forward and executed the sale deed, hence the plaintiff

4

sought the aid of the Court and filed a suit for Specific

Performance.

After service of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared

through

his

advocate

and

filed

written

statement. He denied the plaint averments.

Defendant contended that in the year 2005 he had

borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

only) from one Senthil Jain of Vidhyaranyapura, Bengaluru

North Taluk. As per the advice and request of Senthil Jain,

he had given a cheque and signed blank stamp papers. He

repaid the loan on 18.02.2006. He requested Senthil Jain

to return the signed blank stamp papers since Senthil Jain

was rushing to Tirupathi and as such he assured that he

would return the signed blank stamp papers after coming

back from Tirupathi. Despite defendant9s repeated request,

Senthil Jain did not return the signed blank stamp papers.

It is alleged that the plaintiff fabricated and

concocted the signed blank stamp papers into an

5

Agreement for sale. The defendant specifically contended

that he has not executed any Agreement for Sale in favor

of plaintiff and he also denied the receipt of a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) by way of cash

from plaintiff towards part of sale consideration. Among

other grounds, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the

trial Court framed the following issues:

1.