IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1630 OF 2024 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI N VENUGOPAL,

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT DOOR NO.299, VENKATADRINILAYA,

P.C. EXTENSION, 2^ND CROSS,

NEAR POST OFFICE, KOLAR 563102.

REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER,

SMT. N.V. JAMUNA,

D/O LATE N VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

R/AT 41, SRIRAM NAGAR,

OORGAUMPET, K.G.F-563 120.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by NANDINI R Location: H IGH

COURT OF 1. SMT. YESHODAMMA,

KARNATAKA

W/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

2. SRI M NAGABUSHAN, S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

3. SRI M SHAHSIKUMAR,

S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

4. SMT. VANITHA, W/O KAVERAPPA, D/O LATE G MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT 54, 3RD FLOOR, KHB COLONY, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU-560038. 5. SRI K. SHANKAR, S/O LATE KANNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 'O' DANIEL ROAD, ANDERSONPET, KGF-563 113.

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

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.207/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC, KGF, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.331/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is listed for admission.

3. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff while seeking the relief of specific performance, is that the defendants have executed an agreement of sale dated 28.02.2005, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- and also they have received a sum of ₹4,00,000/- towards part performance of contract and also it is the case of the plaintiff that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is barred by law of limitation. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and also answered Additional Issue No.1 in affirmative in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation since agreement is of the year 2005, the suit is filed in 2011 and time is the essence of contract. Apart from that, the trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the very agreement and payment of ₹4,00,000/- as contended by the plaintiff is not proved as well as the ready and willingness is also not proved and dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, RA No. 207/2022 was filed before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court formulated the points; whether the trial Court comes to an erroneous conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of sale agreement in his favour by defendant No. 1; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that the sale agreement in question is created and concocted document; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that plaintiff has also failed to prove his readiness and willingness; whether the trial Court further erred in holding that the suit of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation; whether the trial Court has not properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and whether the trial Court also erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and refusing to grant the relief. The Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record answered point Nos. 1 to 5 in the negative and so also point Nos.7 to 9 and answered point No.6 in the affirmative with regard to the delay in filing the appeal is concerned an