IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1889 OF 2007 (SP)

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA KAROJI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHAVARAGUDDA, TALUK HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. RUKMINIBAI W/O. FAKKIRAPPA AGADI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O. LAXMI INDUSTRIES, C-460, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOKUL ROAD, OPP. NEW BUS STAND, AT & TALUK: HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

Digitally signed by 2 DEVENDRAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA AGADI, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA DEAD BY HIS LRS.

KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka , Dharwad Bench

2A. SMT. KASTURI W/O. DEVENDRAPPA AGADI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GOKUL ROAD, 1^ST GATE, HUBBALLI.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. C. CHAKALABBI AND SRI S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2(A);

V/O. DATED 25.11.2025 SRI SANGAMESH S. GHULAPPANAVAR, ADV. FOR R1)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2007 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBLI IN R.A.NO.112/2005 ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2005 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) HUBLI IN O.S.NO.304/2001 AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT, WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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 plaintiff calling in question the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2007 passed in R.A.No.112 of 2005 by the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli¹, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2005 passed in O.S.No.304 of 2001 by the file of IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli²

hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for short

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance which was decreed by the Trial Court, but upon the regular appeal filed by the defendants, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, upon a divergent view, this regular second appeal is filed.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property. The husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2, namely Fakkirappa had executed an agreement of sale on 18.04.1971 intending to sell the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.2,100/- and an advance amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid. It was also agreed that upon receipt of the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.100/-, Fakkirappa agreed to execute the registered sale deed. Further, it is the case of plaintiff that Fakkirappa had put the plaintiff in possession and therefore, the plaintiff is in possession since then.

5. Further, it is the case of plaintiff that on

30.05.2001, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants, but the defendants have not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, filed the suit for specific performance.

6. The defendants have appeared through Counsel and filed a written statement. The defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that the suit property is the joint family property of the defendants’ family. Further, denied that Fakkirappa had executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff; hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record has decree the suit directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration am