IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.468 OF 2023 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B MANJUNATH, S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/A YAREHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. Y.S MANJUNATHA Digitally signed S/O SHANKARAPPA, by ANUSHA V AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, Location: High Court of 3. Y.S DHARANESH Karnataka S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST R/A YAREHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK., ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2022 PASSED IN R.A NO.19/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TARIKERE. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DECREED THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2021 PASSED IN O.S NO.47/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE AND ETC THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 18.11.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., Tarikere, in R.A.no.19/2022 and confirming judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021 passed by Civil Judge and Additional J.M.F.C., Tarikere, in O.S.no.47/2016, this second appeal is filed.

2. Sri Arun Ashok Gadag, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in O.S.no.47/2016 seeking relief of specific performance of Agreement of Sale ('AoS', for short) dated 01.02.2013 executed by defendants agreeing to sell land bearing Sy.no.96/3A, measuring 01 Acre 20 guntas situated at Yerehalli village, Amruthapura Hobli, Tarikere Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property') for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-, after receiving advance amount of Rs.4,10,000/- and agreeing to execute sale deed as and when called upon by plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-.

3. In plaint, it was stated that defendants were owners of Suit Property and for legal necessity had approached plaintiff with intention to sell same. It was submitted, after execution of AoS, plaintiff had approached defendants on several occasions stating that he was ready with money and called upon defendants to receive same and execute sale deed. However defendants had sought postponement on one pretext or another. Thereafter on 16.08.2014, defendants got issued legal notice to defraud plaintiff by alleging that AoS was only for purpose of surety for loan transaction and defendants were ready to repay amount and demanded return of original AoS. It was stated that to said legal notice, plaintiff had addressed reply on 01.09.2014 not only denying defendants' assertion, but also stating that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and approached defendants with balance sale consideration on several occasions and specifically stating that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay balance and called upon defendants to execute sale deed. Even thereafter there was no response constraining plaintiff to file suit on

30.01.2016.

4. After service of summons, defendants no.1 and 2 filed written statement and same was adopted by defendants no.3 and 4 denying plaint averments and stating that defendant no.4 had borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Manjappa S/o Kariyappa and for repayment of said loan, defendants had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed AoS dated 01.02.2013 as security for said amount. It was agreed between them that after return with interest, plaintiff was bound to cancel AoS and when defendants approached plaintiff after one year for cancellation of agreement by expressing readiness to repay loan amount, plaintiff had refused and panchayat convened had failed. Since plaintiff f