IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.421 OF 2025 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PALLAVI D/O MANCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT HALUVADI VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TLAUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 403.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H. B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. M. D. JAVARAPPA S/O LATE M. DEVAIAH Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH R/AT RAJAKUMAR EXTENTION COURT OF KARNATAKA BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT SUGER TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 403.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKSHAY PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VAISHALI HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.126/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MANDYA., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART-HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant -

defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.126/2018 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of specific performance of contract is decreed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance on the strength of a registered agreement of sale dated 23.09.2016. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-

and, pursuant thereto, executed the agreement of sale after receiving a substantial advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant undertook to secure the necessary revenue records, including an updated 11-E sketch, and thereafter to complete the sale by receiving the balance consideration. It is categorically averred that despite repeated demands and readiness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, the defendant failed and neglected to conclude the transaction. This compelled the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 02.05.2018. As the defendant neither replied to the said notice nor complied with the contractual obligations, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit in O.S.No.126/2018.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed her written statement. While admitting the execution of the agreement of sale, the defendant contended that the suit schedule property was worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- and that she never intended to alienate the same for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was further contended that she had availed a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet her financial necessities and that the agreement of sale was executed only as a collateral security for the said loan transaction. The defendant specifically asserted her willingness to repay the alleged loan amount with interest and, on that basis, sought dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for consideration.

6. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined three supporting witnesses. He relied upon the registered agreement of sale and other connected documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8.

7. The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one independent witness, namely C.Nagaraju, as D.W.2. However, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her defence.

8. On an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered Issue No.4 in the negative, holding that the defendant had failed to esta