IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2024 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. MR.T.R. SATHISH HEGGADE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE T.G. RAMANNA HEGGADE, R/AT FLAT NO G-8, PALACE ORCHID APARTMENT, 9^TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560094 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M MUNISHAPPA DEAD BY LRS Location: HIGH COURT OF SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

1.

W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA

2. MR.M.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA

3. SMT. M. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA

4. MR.M.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562101

5. SMT.SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA W/O LATE RAJANNA R/AT SHETTIGERE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK – 562157 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.109/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR.

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 appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant executed a sale agreement dated 21.10.2005 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property for a consideration of Rs,4,50,000/- and received an amount of Rs.60,000/- as advance. It is the contention that plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that suit is barred by limitation and hence allowed the parties to lead evidence and plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and also examined one witness as P.W.2. On the other hand defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1, but has not produced any documentary evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the agreement is proved but, answered the Issue No.2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. While answering Issue No.2, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in order to pay the balance amount is concerned, not produced any documentary proof even though considered the statement of the year 2005 and suit was filed in the year 2014 and with regard to the amount in his account is concerned, comes to the conclusion that not placed any documentary proof and also taken note of the fact that notice was issued on 21.10.2011 as per Ex.P.2 and not produced any document to show that notice is served on the defendant and for that reason, limitation cannot be calculated and ordered to refund of amount with 7% interest per annum for the date of execution of the agreement of sale till its realization, the same is challenged before the Appellate court.

3. The Appellate court having considered the grounds which have been urged as against the finding of Issue No.2 in paragraph No.29, comes to the conclusion that this Court doesn't find any error committed by the Trial Court in appreciating with regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is concerned and taken note of even after issuance of notice as per Ex.P.2 in the year 2011, suit was filed after lapse of 2½ years and plaintiff never pressurized the defendant to get remove the prohibition clause entered in clause No.11 of RTC. If really the plaintiff is ready and willing to