IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2304 OF 2017 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATARAMANAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS RESIDING AT DODEGOWDANAPALYA SANTHEMAVATHUR POST KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B KESHAVA MURTHY., ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

sign ed by KIRAN KUMAR R 1. SRI S M CHANDRAHASA Location: S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA GOWDA HIGH COURT AGED 63 YEARS OF KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560050 2. SMT HEMAVATHI W/O S M CHANDRAHASA AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560050

3. SRI DR S C ASHOK S/O S M CHANDRAHASA AGED 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560050 4. SMT S C CHAITRA D/O S M CHANDRAHASA AGED 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560050

5. KUM S C ABHILASHA D/O S M CHANDRAHASA AGED 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560050

6. KUM S C CHETANA D/O S M CHANDRAHASA AGED 24 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 697, AKSHARA NILAYA

4TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BANASHANKARI III PHASE, BANGALORE – 560050.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R S RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.07.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 73/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.04.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO. 49/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KUNIGAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2017 passed in RA No. 73 of 2013 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tumakuru (‘First Appellate Court’ for short) and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2013 passed in OS No. 49 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal (‘Trial Court’ for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. Appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property and they agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of ₹2,43,750/-and accordingly, the defendants received ₹50,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Accordingly, the defendants executed a sale agreement dated 09.01.2006. The plaintiff requested the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed. Despite several requests made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice, the defendants did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of the contract.

3.2. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a common written statement. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 have filed separate written statements.

3.3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a written statement contending that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 and it is denied that the defendants have executed a sale agreement agreeing to sell the s