IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2023 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. HULUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O. DINDADAHALLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. VENKATESHA S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed R/O. CHINAKURULI VILLAGE by DEVIKA M PANDAVAPURA TALUK Location: HIGH MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. R. KRISHNAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3. MANJAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

4. R. RAJAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ALL R/O. ASHOKA NAGARA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief at the first instance for injunction and in the second instance, amending the plaint for specific performance specifically pleaded that the deceased Rudrappa son of Gurappa executed an agreement of sale dated 05.12.2000 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property for total consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, it is the contention that the deceased Rudrappa had received Rs.75,000/- towards advance amount and also contention that he had agreed to sell northern portion of 2 acres out of the suit property for total consideration of Rs.85,000/- and on 16.06.2004, received the amount of Rs.40,000/- and also pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendants appeared and filed written statement disputing the very execution of document of sale agreement and receipt of the advance amount and also took the contention that the suit is barred by limitation.

3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 not inspires the confidence of the Court and in paragraph No.20 taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and also taken note of evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph No.21 with regard to the very execution of the document and also the witnesses who are present at the execution of the said document. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.2 and who says that only an amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid in his presence at the time of agreement and also he cannot say whether an amount of Rs.40,000/- was taken earlier and he has not aware of the same and also he cannot say whether the payment of Rs.40,000/- was mentioned in the agreement or not and apart from that the evidence of P.W.4 also taken note of with regard to the payment is concerned. Having considered the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 comes to the conclusion that the pleadings of the plaintiff is one thing and his admission is another and cross-examination of P.W.1 is also one thing, but, the recital in the agreement is contrary to the admission of P.W.2 and comes to the conclusion that the very execution of the agreement was not proved and dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court has misread the document and oral evidence and