IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2023 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. D.M. NAGARAJU S/O LATE MAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O DODDAPALYA VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. K PRASANNAKUMAR S/O LATE KALEGOWDA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Location: H IGH R/AT MARALAGALA VILLAGE COURT OF K SHETTIHALLI HOBLI KARNATAKA SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.G. SATEESHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2023 PASSED IN RA.NO.31/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.95/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court for the relief of specific performance sought by the plaintiff. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that there was a sale agreement dated 25.01.2012 between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-. It is also the contention of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that as on the date of entering into an agreement an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by way of cheque dated 25.02.2012 and the same was accepted and acknowledge by the defendant and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

3. It is also the case of the plaintiff that time is fixed for a period of two years to execute the registered sale deed and balance amount of Rs.35,000/- to be payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is further stated that when demand was made, the defendant agreed to execute the sale deed but did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, legal notice was issued on 20.01.2014 and there was a mistake in mentioning the amount and hence, one more notice was issued on 23.01.2014 and notices were served on the defendant but he did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, filed the suit.

4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that he was dire need of money and as such he approached the plaintiff for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.60,000/- and the plaintiff insisted to execute the sale agreement as the security to the said loan amount. Instead of loan agreement as sale agreement was executed and the very execution of the document is denied and receiving of the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the wife of the plaintiff is false. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined three witness as P.W.2 to 4 and defendant also examined himself as D.W.1 and not marked any document on the order hand the plaintiff got marked seven documents as Ex.P1 to 7.

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record taken note of the defence as loan agreement and extracted the answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 while answering issue No.2 with regard to the readiness and willingness particularly in paragraph Nos.19 and 20. With regard to the granting of the relief of specific performance is concerned, when the defence was taken that it was a loan agreement, extracte