IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100272 OF 2025 (SP/DE/IN)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

2. VENKATESH S/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

3. RAVI S/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, DMKLKD+ oA a i a0 Ag crt L 5 Li ena t 3 M : L ta a 0 i 2t Il oA a K 0 y nT k A 2 :H s a R 5 H i , g . J D0 i nU g 9h e h N . d a1 Cr R 8 b wo Uy 1 ua1 D rdt : R 1 Bo A 6ef : Y n5 Y c7 A h R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

4. PRAVEEN S/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 5. BHAGYA D/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 6. KAVITA D/O. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA HULAGERA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

… APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GUDIMANI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HULAGERA-583 281, POST: HULAGERA, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. VEERAPPA SHETTAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: SHETTAR STREET, NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE, ILAKAL-587 125, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

… RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED IN O.S. NO.182/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUSHTAGI, AND DECREE THE SUIT BEARING O.S. NO.182/2015 IN ITS ENTIRELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs calling in question the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2023 in O.S.No.182/2015 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kushtagi, thereby, the suit filed for a specific performance of contract is decreed in part by refunding earnest amount with interest but not decreeing the suit for main relief of specific performance of contract. Also the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree directing to pay requisite stamp duty and penalty of Rs.1,48,500/- on documentary evidence at Ex.P1 by sending document to Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, to recover the said amount as land revenue.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance of contract by making averments that the defendants are owners of the land bearing Sy.No.177 Hissa-A measuring 7 acres 13 guntas of Hulagera village and defendant No.1 for his legal and family necessities had agreed to sell 4 acres of land, out of 7 acres 13 guntas to the plaintiffs and accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 04.11.2010 for total sale consideration amount of Rs.13,60,000/-. Out of it, plaintiffs have paid an earnest amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and defendants have accepted the same. When this being the fact, in spite of repeated request for calling upon defendants to execute a sale deed, the defendants have not come forward to execute registered sale deed. It is contended in the plaint that the plaintiffs are ever ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of contract.

4. Further it is stated that defendant No.2 had purchased property from defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and denied all the averments such as execution of agreement of sale and receipt of earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, pr