IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 962 OF 2019 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI S MANJUNATHA, SON OF LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAMUNDIGUDDA, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, NEELAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE, TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129, ALSO AT NO.52, IST MAIN ROAD, NANJUNDESWARANAGARA, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096.

…APPELLANT (BY MISS ARCHANA T V, ADVOCATE FOR Dig itally SRI T N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

signed by C HONNUR SAB AND:

Location:

HIGH COURT OF 1. SMT GANGAMMA, KARNATAKA DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRAKASANDRA COLONY POST, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129.

2. SRI JAYARUDRAPPA, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT IRKASADRA COLONY POST, KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI THONTADHARYA R K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P B AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER

41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is against a judgment and decree dated 07.03.2019 passed in O.S. No.7/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madhugiri, a suit for specific performance, wherein the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff is before this Court.

3. The suit for specific performance is based on the alleged agreement for sale dated 09.11.2012. The execution of the agreement is disputed by the defendants. In addition, the defendants have raised the following two contentions:

a) The agreement is not properly stamped.

b) The agreement is not duly registered.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would submit that the document is duly stamped on 01.02.2013 by submitting the same before the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar. It is urged that, the agreement for sale though not registered and required to be registered because of the clause in the agreement which recorded delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff, is nevertheless admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would urge that, the defendants have not cross-examined the plaintiff or his witnesses and have not led the evidence. And this being the factual position, the Trial Court could not have held that agreement for sale is not proved and that readiness and willingness is not established.

6. The statement relating to readiness and willingness in the examination-in-chief is not controverted by the defendants. Thus, urged that the appeal be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants would urge that the defendant filed an application to impound the document i.e. agreement for sale on the premise that the agreement for sale is not sufficiently stamped and said application was rejected and the document is marked in evidence and said orders were called in question by filing Writ Petition No.8280/2017 and W.P. No.57827/2016. 8. It is further submitted that in one writ petition there was an interim order of stay and the defendants/respondents carried the impression that, the stay order is until further orders and thereafter did not participate in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

9. However, it later transpired that the stay order was only for 8 weeks and the Trial Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff, as such, there was no contest by the defendants and in this back