IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1242 OF 2016 (SP)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. G. C. SATHISH KUMAR S/O. D.L. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MERCHANT, RESIDENT OF KODI CAMP, TARIKERE TOWN-577 528.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI B NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL;

GNANESHA N I.,ADVOCATE AND K.B. MONISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed 1. SRI. T. C. VIJAYA KUMAR by KIRAN S/O. CHANDRAPPA, KUMAR R AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. KUMARI MONIKA D/O. T.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 3. KUMARI MONISHA D/O. T.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, 4. KUMARI MOHITHA D/O. T.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, RESPONDENT No.4 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. T.C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GALIHALLI, TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL;

SANTHOSH R NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

(R4 IS MINOR REP BY R1)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.14/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.57/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL.JMFC., TARIKERE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2016 passed in R.A.No.14 of 2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru and the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in O.S.No. 57 of 2007 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Prl.JMFC., Tarikere, refusing to grant a relief for specific performance of contract.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and respondents were the defendants.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of ₹8,60,000/- and executed a sale agreement on 09.12.2005. Defendant No.1 on the day of execution of sale agreement received ₹1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for himself and acting on behalf of his minor children and agreed to accept another sum of ₹1,00,000/- by the end of January 2006, and the balance consideration of ₹ 6,60,000/- was agreed to be paid to the plaintiffs at the end of April 2006, after which, the absolute sale deed would be conveyed by the defendants in favour of him.

5. It is contended that the defendants have borrowed a loan from the bank and financial institutions but not discharged the debts. Defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to extend the period of registration of sale deed and executed a renewal of agreement. Defendant No.1 had not disclosed the debts due to the Karnataka Khadi Gramodyoga Rural Industries, Chikkamagalur on the schedule property and also not disclosed the mortgaging of the suit schedule property to the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Chikkamagaluru. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short ‘KSFC’), Chikkamagaluru and Khadi Gramodyoga Rural Industries for disclosing the debts over the suit schedule property borrowed by defendant No.1. Only Khadi Gramodyoga Rural Industries responded to the notice, however, the KSFC did not respond to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 to clear the outstanding dues of both the financial institutions. The defendants have not cleared the debts due to creditors. The plaintiff to show th