IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100173 OF 2025 (SP)

BETWEEN:

ANDANAYYA S/O. YOGAYYA PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SULIBHAVI, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587124.

PRESENTLY R/O.#103, 5^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR GOVT. PUBLIC LIBRARY, 1^ST STAGE, BRINDHAVAN EXTENSION, MYSURU-570020.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT.RASHMI P.MANDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI SOMASHEKARGOUDA Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M S/O. BASAVANTGOUDA PATIL, KANKUPPI Date: 2026.02.13 AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 12:32:00 +0530 R/O. HUNGUND, TQ.HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587118.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND IN O.S.NO.104/2023 BY ALLOWING THE SAID APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Even though this is at the stage of admission, at the request and submission of both sides, the arguments heard on merits.

2. This is the appeal of defendant. Parties would be referred to their ranks as they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit before trial Court praying for specific performance of the registered agreement of sale dated 24.02.2021 contending that defendant by receiving a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as an advance amount, agreed to sell the entire suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.28,62,500/- and entered into the sale agreement which is registered in accordance with law. Defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed whenever called for and agreed to clear the loan and to prepare the papers ready for registration and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for his family necessities. He agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of registration of the sale deed. Even after repeated request and demands, and even though, plaintiff was ready to pay the balance of sale consideration amount, defendant has taken some more time on some other grounds i.e., to clear the dues over land and postpone the same on one or the other pretext. Hence, plaintiff has issued legal notice dated 11.07.2023 to defendant, which returned unserved. Defendant is intentionally avoiding to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, the suit is filed for appropriate reliefs before trial Court.

4. Even after taking the service of notice, as held sufficient by way of paper publication, defendant has not appeared, hence, placed ex-parte before trial Court.

5. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, apart from examining attestors to the agreement as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and closed his side before trial Court.

6. After recording evidence, the learned trial judge has decreed the suit. The same is challenged in this appeal by defendant.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant/defendant that suit summons was not served upon defendant because defendant along with his wife and son were in Mysuru to provide proper treatment to his son who was suffering from kidney failure and his wife was donor of kidney. In the meanwhile, the suit was filed and defendant was not at all aware about filing of the suit. He has not seen the paper publication which was published only in a local newspaper. Only after issuance of notice of execution petition, appellant came to know about filing of the suit and decreeing the suit and hence, this appeal is filed.

9. Learned counsel for appellant Smt. Rashmi P. Mandi would submit that the appellant is having very good grounds of defence a