IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2013 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI G C JAYARAMAIAH AGE:48 YEARS, S/O SRI.CHINNEGOWDA, R/AT GUDIDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, Digitally PIN CODE:571428.

signed by SUNITHA K S Location:

HIGH COURT …APPELLANT OF (BY SRI RAJESH.C, ADV. FOR KARNATAKA SRI. V.S.ARBATTI &., ADV.)

AND:

SRI RAMEGOWDA AGE:52 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.LINGEGOWDA, GUDIDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, PIN CODE:571428.

…RESPONDENT RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT &

DECREE DTD 27.8.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.3.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.179/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), AND JMFC, MADDUR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2012 passed in R.A.No.32/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and he agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the earnest money, and executed the registered sale agreement on 19.12.2003, and it was agreed that the defendant, after receiving the balance sale consideration amount, would execute a registered sale deed within 24 months. The defendant dodged the matter without executing the sale deed despite request made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is/was always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 15.04.2008 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount, and execute a register sale deed. The defendant replied to the said legal notice, untenably. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit for specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and denied the execution of the alleged registered sale agreement. It is contended that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessity, and as a security for the repayment of the loan, executed the alleged sale agreement dated 19.12.2003. It is contended that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. It is also contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is contended that the defendant is not an absolute owner of the suit properties as they are ancestral joint family properties. It is contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts. Hence, there is no cause of action. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed registered sale agreement dated 19.12.2003 to sell the suit schedule properties in his favour?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

4) What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiat