IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6146 OF 2012 (SP)

BETWEEN:

HANAMANTGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAJJIDONI, TQ. & DIST: BAGALKOT-587204.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI S. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1. GOUDAPPA S/O. PANDAPPA BATAKURKI, SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LR’S.

1A. TAYAWWA W/O. GOUDAPPA BATAKURKI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAJJIDONI, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.

1B. LAXMIBAI W/O. SHANKREPPA KAGALGOMB, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAJJIDONI, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.

Digitally signed b M y ALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH 1C. SUBHAS S/O. GOUDAPPA BATAKURKI, L C K o a o c r u n a r t a t i t o o a n f k : a H , igh AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Dharwad Bench R/O. KAJJIDONI, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADV. FOR R1(A TO C))

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2012 IN R.A.NO.53/2009 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT JAMKHANDI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.200/2006 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DN.) JAMKHANDI, SITTING AT: MUDHOL DATED 13.03.2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, 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 the defendant calling in question the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed in R.A.No.53/2009 on the file of Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’ which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 passed in O.S.No.200/2006 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (SR.DN.), Jamkhandi, sitting at Mudhol, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’, thereby the suit for specific performance was decreed. Since there are concurrent findings of fact and the defendant aggrieved by the direction to execute the sale deed, the defendant has preferred the present regular second appeal.

2. For the purpose of convenience, 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 defendant is the owner of the suit schedule land and that there was an offer and acceptance in respect of the same. Accordingly, a registered

agreement of sale came to be executed on 04.04.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,09,000/-, out of which an advance amount of Rs.4,91,000/- was paid, and the balance consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. It is further contended that despite repeated requests; the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, after issuance of a legal notice, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. The defendant specifically denied execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. It is the defence of the defendant that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was purely a monetary transaction and that the defendant never intended to sell the suit schedule land. Accordingly, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property within one month from the date of judgment and to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant preferred a regular appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court d