IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2153 OF 2021 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI B SIDDESWARA S/O LATE B BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, ‘SHARADHA NILAYA’, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, DEVANUR ROAD VIJAYANAGAR TUMKUR - 572 102 …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMESH K R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI M JAMBANNA S/O M HAMPPANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT GROUND FLOOR, 1^ST ‘A’ CROSS, 3^RD ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by 6^TH BLOCK, B E L LAYOUT, MALATE SH VIDYARANYAPURA K C BENGALURU - 560 097 Location:

…RESPONDENT HIGH (BY SRI N RAMALINGA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.167/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2019 PASSED IN OS No.73/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K.R.Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N Ramalinga Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Appeal by the defendant challenging the judgment passed in RA No.167/2019 dated 27.07.2021 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 24.06.2011 in respect of the below mentioned immovable property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ by reversing the judgment dated 10.04.2019 passed in O.S No.73/2016 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru:

“All the piece and parcel of property bearing Municipal Khata No.1589, Carved out of converted Sy.No.45/6 vide Order No.B.DIS.ALN.SRI 36/1986-87, Upparahalli village, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District situated at Upparahalli dated 29.01.1998 by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, situated at presently Upparahalli, Channabasaveshwara Layout, Ward No.23, Tumakuru measuring East to West 60 ft. and North to South 40 ft. in all measuring 2,400 sq.ft. and bounded on:

East by: Conservancy, West by: road, North by: Narasaiah’s property, South by: T.Rangaswamy’s property.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific enforcement of the agreement to sell in respect of the suit property executed on 24.06.2011 by contending that defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. Defendant purchased the said property on 26.03.1999 from Smt.Sarvamangala under the registered sale deed.

5. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.7,50,000/- in the agreement and plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration. Defendant undertook to register the property in favour of plaintiff or his nominees. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation under the agreement to sell and demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed, time and again.

6. But defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other.

7. Finally plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 21.01.2016. Defendant sent an untenable reply on

06.02.2016. Therefore, suit came to be filed.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and engaged the counsel. He denied the plaint averments in toto by filing the written statement.

9. Defendant contended that he is not the absolute owner of the suit property. He purchased the same as Kartha of his wife and son. Defendant had no exclusive and independent right to execute the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and by misleading the defendant, and by playing mischief, plaintiff has concocted and fabricated the agreement to sell.

10. Defendant also contended that he never agreed to sell the property either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of hi