IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1899 OF 2012 (SP)

BETWEEN:

M/S.VARNA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.33, SWISS COMPLEX, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, PRESENTLY AT NO.22/2, 1^ST MAIN ROAD CROSS, JAYAMAHAL, BANGALORE.

REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI V.BHAKTHA KUMAR.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI SHYAM KOUNDINYA. A.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.G.RAJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1(a) SMT.LAKSHMI RAJAPPA, W/O LATE G.RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 1(b) SRI.G.R.PRADEEP, S/O LATE G.RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 1(c) SRI.G.R.SANDEEP, S/O LATE G.RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R1(a) TO (c) ARE R/AT NO.562, 20^TH MAIN, 36^TH CROSS, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041

2. SRI.JAGANNATHA V. PAI, MAJOR, R/AT NO.1319, SARAKKI LAYOUT, 2^ND PHASE, J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.N.BALASUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) & (c);

SRI PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI,ADVOCATE FOR R1(b);

R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.15935/2005 ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND MESNE PROFIT.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JAYANT BANERJI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

The plaintiff-appellant, which is a registered firm, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 04.10.1994 directing first defendant to execute sale deed in respect of the suit schedule ‘C’ property. The rent/mesne profit in respect of the said property was claimed. Also sought was vacant possession and costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their ranking in the suit.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that it is a partnership firm registered on 18.08.1994. The objective of the firm is inter alia to acquire the property in the name of the firm. In the year 1994, the plaintiff came across an offer made by first defendant in respect of the property bearing No.1319 situated at Sarakki Layout, II Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore measuring 3600 square feet which is suit schedule ‘A’ property. This property was allotted by BDA, Bangalore Development Authority and possession certificate was issued on 16.11.1992 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of ten years. The offer of first defendant was that he did not have funds to develop the property and exploit to its maximum potential, as he was a Police Officer in the Government of Karnataka and he was agreeable to share the property, the plaintiff agreed and accepted the offer of the first defendant to develop and share the schedule ‘A’ property.

4. The plaintiff had to bear the cost of developing the property which thereafter had to be shared mutually to the benefit of the plaintiff and first defendant. The plan was that approximate development of the property would be upto second floor. Based on that, it was agreed by both the parties to share the properties after development. In the basement,

three car parking space were required to be given to the land owner, who is the first defendant, measuring 450 square feet. Since the site was to have a showroom, it was agreed that 500 square feet would be given to the first defendant for showroom purpose and in the first and second floor, 3450 square feet in all was to be given to him. The rest of the area up to second floor would go to the plaintiff, which the first defendant agreed to convey in favour of the plaintiff or anybody the plaintiff nominates. It was agreed that in the event any construction is put up above the second floor, the same shall be shared