IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2025 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. H.L. NARAYANA

S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH

AGED 69 YEARS

R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE

KOTHAGERE HOBLI

KUNIGAL TALUK-572130

TUMAKURU DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. H.G. ESHWAR

S/O LATE GANGAVEERANNA

AGED 46 YEARS Digitally signed

R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE

by DEVIKA M

KOTHAGERE HOBLI

Location: HIGH

KUNIGAL TALUK-572130

COURT OF

KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITHA C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.211/2022 ON THE FILE

OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL.

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 and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that defendant has executed a sale agreement on 06.08.2021 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- as against total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is also contented that time is the essence of contract and one year time was fixed to complete the sale transaction. But, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, legal notice was issued in terms of Ex.P5 and the same was served and no reply was given. Therefore, filed the suit for the relief of specific performance.

4. The defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the said document is only a security for the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence.

The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P10. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D7 and except self-serving statement with regard to it is only a security document executed towards loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, not examined any of the witnesses.

6. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as two witnesses, who deposed before the Court with regard to sale transaction is concerned, accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted the relief of specific performance, accepting the case of plaintiff.

7. The appellant has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court contending that it was only a security document and not the sale agreement. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in view of the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court has committed an error in accepting the sale agreement and rejecting the contention of the defendant. He admits that plaintiff is financially sound and he is capable of paying Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, the defendant had borrowed loan from the bank and had mortgaged his self-acquired properties by executing a mortgage deed as per Ex.D7 which includes the suit schedule property and taking into note of all these materials, comes to the conclusion that defendant was in need of money. Hence, executed the sale agreement and plaintiff also proved the very execution of sale agreement by the defendant and the Trial Court has not committed any error and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing