##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3280

RSA No. 100205 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100205 OF 2021 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI HANUMANTH S/O. DUNDAPPA TEGGI,

AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HUNASHIKATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,

DIST: BAGALKOTE.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI SANKAPPA S/O. BALAPPA KUMBAR,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: CHINAGUNDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,

DIST: BAGALKOTE.

(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.)

Digitally signed

b Ry

U

M DRA AL YL YIK AARJUN

KALMATH

Location: High

Court of 1(A) LAKKAVVA W/O. SANKAPPA KUMBAR,

Karnataka,

Dharwad Bench

AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: CHINAGINDI VILLAGE,

TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

1(B) NIRMALA SOMANATH KUMBAR,

AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: CHINAGINDI VILLAGE,

TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

1(C) MADAPPA S/O. SANKAPPA KUMBAR

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3280

RSA No. 100205 of 2021

HC-KAR

R/O: CHINAGINDI VILLAGE,

TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-58731.

1(D) YAMANAVVA W/O. GIRIMALLAPPA KUMBAR,

AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: CHINAGINDI VILLAGE,

TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

1(E) ASHOKE S/O. SANKAPPA KUMBAR,

AGE; 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: CHINAGINDI VILLAGE,

TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

2. TIMMAPPA @ TIMMANNA S/O. DUNDAPPA TEGGI

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HUNASHIKATTI,

TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

3. GOVINDAPPA S/O. DUNDAPA TEGGI

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HUNASHIKATTI,

TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

4. VENKAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA TEGGI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HUNASHIKATTI,

TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587301.

…RESPONDENTS

(R1-DECEASED;

R1(A) TO R1(E) ARE NOTICE SERVED-UNREPRESENTED;

R2 TO R4 – APPEAL ABATED) VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2026.)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2011

PASSED IN R.A.NO.15/2008 BY THE FAST TRACK COURT,

JAMKHANDI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

01.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.146/1998, BY THE PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), JAMKHANDI AND ETC.,.

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3280

RSA No. 100205 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1

questioning the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011

passed in R.A.No.15/2008, by the Fast Track Court,

Jamakhandi (First Appellate Court), which confirmed the

judgment and decree dated 01.10.2007 passed in

O.S.No.146/1998 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),

Jamakhandi (trial Court), thereby the suit filed by the

plaintiff for specific performance of contract is decreed.

2. For the purpose of convenience and easy

reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their

status before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants

are the owners of the suit schedule land bearing R.S.No.48,

measuring 06 acres 26 guntas, situated at Chinagundi

village and the defendants have agreed to sell the suit

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3280

RSA No. 100205 of 2021

HC-KAR

schedule land to the plaintiff and executed agreement of

sale on 19.06.1997 for a total sale consideration amount of

Rs.2,72,615/-, out of which earnest money of Rs.1,38,000/-

is paid and agreed to get the sale deed registered on or

before 15.05.1998 on receiving the balance sale

consideration of Rs.1,34,615/- and possession of the land

was handed over to the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff

that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of

contract, but the defendants have not come forward to

execute the sale deed. Therefore, upon issuance of legal

notice, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific

performance of contract.

4. The defendants have filed the written statement

by denying all the averments made in the plaint and also

deni