IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1629 OF 2012 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI T.S.S. RAMACHANDRA MURTY, S/O T.NARAYANA RAO, AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NO.1011, 2ND FLOOR, 13TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, HAL 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI.M.U.POONACHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.NAREN KUMAR, Digitally S/O M.A.LAKSHMAN, signed by K G AGED 48 YEARS, RENUKAMBA R/AT NO.164/1, CHIKKAHULLUR, Location:

HIGH COURT NEAR KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, OF CHINTAMANI ROAD, HOSKOTE, KARNATAKA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN-560 053.

2. SMT.HARITHA MOHARLA, D/O R.G.VASANTH, AGED 33 YEARS, 3. MISS. HASITHA GUNRAJU RATHNAKARAM, D/O R.G.VASANTH, AGED 31 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.G-4, "PARAGON RESIDENCY"

SERPENTINE STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE-560 026.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 12.09.2014 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2684/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-II, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed for specific performance. By means of the decree under appeal, the relief of specific performance of contract entered into on 24.04.2005 was rejected and defendant No.1 was directed to refund the advance sale consideration amount received by him from the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the amount.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was entitled to specific performance of the contract dated 24.04.2005 and the trial Court committed a factual error as well as a legal error in not decreeing specific performance but directing refund of the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- with interest given the fact that the amount advanced was far in excess of Rs.5,50,000/- and the defence of the defendant was struck off. It is stated that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the trial Court committed gross error in refusing to consider the same.

4. We have perused the record of the case.

5. In the plaint the defendant is described as the absolute owner of the site/property bearing North Middle Portion of New No.56 (portion of old site Nos. 213, 214, 215, 216, 217 and 218) house list No.172, khata No.134/1, New Mahadevapura, CMC Khata No.95, situated at Pattanduru Agrahara village, Prithvi Layout, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, earlier Bengaluru South Taluk, that is stated to be morefully described in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that he has got a clear and marketable title to the suit schedule property and offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for valuable sale consideration. Accordingly, an agreement of 24.04.2005, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, was executed by the defendant wherein the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.17,85,000/-. An advance sale consideration of Rs.4,85,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant who acknowledged receipt of the same. Out of the balance sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-, which was agreed to be paid in three months from the date of execution of the aforesaid sale agreement. A further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was, later, paid by the plaintiff to the defendant who acknowledged receipt of the same. The balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution