IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2018 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SMT VIJAYA VENKATESH

39 YEARS, W/O C VENKATESH R/AT NO.6/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD TEMPLE STREET, 16^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI THIAMMARAYAPPA Digitally S/O BYRAPPA signed by

70 YEARS, REKHA R RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLANAHALLI Location:

High Court MANDURU POST, of BIDARAHALLI, Karnataka BANGALORE.

2. SMT VENKATLAKSMMAMMA D/O THIMMARAYAPPA

28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLANAHALLI MANDURU POST, BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

3. SMT ANUSUYA D/O THIMMARAYAPPA

33 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLANAHALLI.

MANDURU POST, BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

4. SRI ASHWATH S/O THIMMARAYAPPA

28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLANAHALLI, MANDURU POST, BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.727/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

Though this appeal is listed for orders for non-filing of translated copies which is now made available by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, since the respondents are served and unrepresented, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. The plaintiff is in appeal before us under Section 96 of CPC, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the Trial Court').

3. The learned Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance answering all the issues framed in the suit against the plaintiff though there is no contest by the defendants.

4. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

5. Heard, Sri.Ganapathy Bhat Vajralli., learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondents though served, remained unrepresented.

6. The factual matrix leading to file the present appeal are as under: As per the plaintiff:

The plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:

a) Decree of specific performance, directing the Defendants 1 to 4, their agents, workmen, nominees, representatives or any one claiming under them, to perform their obligations by executing a Registered Sale Deed by receiving the balance of the sale consideration in favour of the Plaintiff, in respect of the Schedule Land OR if the Defendants 1 to 4 fail to perform their part of the obligations and to execute the Sale Deed, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute the Sale deed in respect of Schedule Land in favour of the Plaintiff and get the name duly Registered in accordance with law.

b) To direct the Defendants 1 to 4 to deliver the vacant possession of the Schedule Land to the Plaintiff OR if the Defendants fail to deliver the vacant possession, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deliver the vacant possession of the Schedule Land to the Plaintiff.

c) For declaration that the Sale deed dated 1-9-

2007 executed by Defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of the fifth Defendant, Registeredas No.BDH-1- 01869/07-08, Book-I, CD No.BDHD 5 and Registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bidarahalli, Bangalore East Taluk, is ab-initio void and is not binding on the Plaintiff.

d) For possession directing the fifth Defendant, his agents, nominees, workmen or any one claiming under him, to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the Schedule Land to the Plaintiff.

e) For Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, their ag