IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1950 OF 2025 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. S.L.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

R/O 6^TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,

MADDUR TOWN,

MANDYA DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA - 571428 2. YASHASWINI K L

D/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

R/O 6^TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,

MADDUR TOWN, Digitally signed

by DEVIKA M MANDYA DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA – 571428

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 3. LEKHANAGOWDA K L

D/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

R/O 6^TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR,

MADDUR TOWN,

MANDYA DISTRICT,

KARNATAKA – 571428

4. DEVANANDAGOWDA K L

S/O S L KRISHNEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

R/O 6^TH CROSS, HKV NAGAR, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571428 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. G.H.VASANTH W/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWADA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571428

2. Y H ABHISHEKGOWDA S/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571428

3. SACHINGOWDA Y H S/O LATE HUCHAMASTHI GOWA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT GEJJALAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571428 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.10.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.53/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND ETC.

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 second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that defendants have entered into the sale agreement on 10.01.2019 with the plaintiff and the plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs.6,50,000/- as against Rs.7,25,000/- and time was fixed for 11 months for completion of the sale agreement. But the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff had issued the notice. When the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed after issuance of notice, filed the suit for specific performance. The specific pleading of he plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The defendants took the specific defence in the written statement that the agreement is only for security towards the discharge of loan of Rs.5,00,000/-

advanced from the plaintiff and not the sale transaction.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff is expired and his legal heirs are brought on record. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.1(a) examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.1 as DW1 however, they have not chosen to produce any document. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in paragraph 10, taken note of that defendants have not disputed their signatures on Ex.P1 agreement of sale. Ex.P1 is a registered agreement of sale. It has got initial presumptive value under the provisions of Registration Act and Evidence Act. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 3608 in the case of PREM SINGH AND OTHERS vs BIRBAL AND OTHERS wherein the Apex Court held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. The Trial Court also taken note of that when the terms and conditions of the agreement reduced to document in writing cannot be sought to be proved by any other evidence than document