IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1419 OF 2017 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI S. PRASHANTH S/O. V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9/1 BALEPETE, KOLLEGALA TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI SHIVAMADAPPA S/O. LATE CHIKKAMADDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7/22, 4^TH CROSS BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, KOLLEGALA TOWN Digitally signed by MOUNESHWA RAPPA CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

2. SRI V. SRINIVAS S/O. VENKATARAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 3. SRI S. KANAKARAJU S/O. V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

4. KUM. S. PADMASHRI D/O. V. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.9/1, BALEPETE KOLLEGALA TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, &

R-2 TO R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13-10-2015 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.33 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOLLEGALA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.3 challenging the judgment and decree dated 13-10-2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, in Original Suit No.33 of 2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the defendants acquired property under a registered Sale Deed dated 30-1-1970. The khata stood in the name of defendant No.1 being the owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Municipality No.9/1, Assessment No.1, measuring 1044 square feet, situated at Kollegala Town, Chamarajanagar District. The defendants were intending to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants offered the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 20-11-2012, the defendants executed the registered Agreement of Sale with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and same was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Kollegala. Two years time was fixed to execute the Sale Deed. As on the date of the agreement, the plaintiff had given Rs.4,00,000/- to the defendants. Further, in earlier transaction, i.e. on 30-5-2012, the defendants mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.10,00,000/- through registered Mortgage Deed. Thus, the defendants have received in all Rs.14,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was ready and willing party to perform his part of the contract, he requested the defendants to execute the Sale Deed by receiving balance sale consideration, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. In this regard, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 5-8-2013 and called upon the defendants to execute the Sale Deed by receiving balance sale consideration, but the defendants failed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on Agreement of Sale.

4. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 appeared through their counsel, but did not file any written statement. Defendant No.3 did not appear before the Court and thus, he was placed ex parte.

5. In order to prove his