Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.239/2010 (SP) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.528/2010 (SP)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.239/2010:
BETWEEN:
MR. V. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O R. VENKATARAMANA REDDY,
RESIDING AT NO.102/1,
5TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS,
B.T.M 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560068. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. MUNITHIMMA REDDY @ SUBBARAYAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNI REDDY,
RESIDENT OF KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS OF
MR. MUNITHIMMA REDDY
1(a) MRS. JYOTHI,
W/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
1(b) MR. HEMANTH,
S/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O. KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
1(c) MRS. LIKITHA,
D/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
W/O SHASHIDHAR,
R/O. KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. SMT. NANJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNI REDDY
RESIDENT OF KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS OF SMT. NANJAMMA.
2(a) MRS. YELLAMMA,
AGE: MAJOR,
W/O MR. KRISHNA REDDY,
D/O SMT. NANJAMMA
RESIDING AT KITHAGANAHALLI
VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560099.
(R1(a) TO R1(c) ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 28.01.2025)
3. MR. M. JAIRAM REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE MIDDEMANE MUNISHAMI REDDY,
RESIDENT OF CHINTALA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K.V.CHALAPATHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. CHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. SUNDARA SWAMY RAMADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. R. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a to c);
SRI. S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(a)
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025, R1(a to c) ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R2)
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2009 PASSED IN R.A.199/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWEING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.937/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.528/2010:
BETWEEN:
MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR V.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O. R. VENKATARAMANA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.102/1, 5TH MAIN,
8TH CROSS, BTM 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 068. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. M. JAIRAM REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MIDDEMANE MUNISHAMI REDDY,
RESIDENT OF CHINTALA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2. MR. MUNITHIMMA REDDY @ SUBBARAYAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNI REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS OF MR. MUNITHIMMA REDDY
2(a) MRS. JYOTHI,
W/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2(b) MR. HEMANTH,
S/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O. KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2(c) MRS. LIKITHA,
D/O LATE MUNITHIMMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
W/O SHASHIDHAR,
R/O. KITHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
3. SMT. NANJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNI REDDY
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS OF SMT. NANJAMMA.
3(a) MRS. YELLAMMA,
AGE: MAJOR,
W/O MR. KRISHNA REDDY,
D/O SMT. NANJAMMA
RESIDING AT KITHAGANAHALLI
VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560099.
(R2(a) TO R2(c) ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 28.01.2025)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K.V. CHALAPATHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. CHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a);
SRI. SUNDARA SWAMY RAMADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. R. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(a to c);
VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025, R2(a to c) ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3)
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.188/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.9.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.937/2006 (OLD NO.1530/2004) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.06.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV JUDGMENT
These two second appeals are filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bangaluru in R.A.No.199/2008 and R.A.No.188/2008 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.937/2006 and directing respondent No.1 herein to pay Rs.77,500/- with interest at 15% from 28.08.2000 till payment by allowing these appeals with costs.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief for specific performance is that there was an agreement of sale dated 11.07.1999 in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.75/2 measuring 35 guntas in Huskur Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk and he has been in possession of the same. It is his case that he is also the owner in possession of land in Sy.Nos.31, 32/1 and 83 of Kaggalipura Village. It is contended by the plaintiff that all these lands are adjoining to each other. It is his case that there is a borewell in Sy.No.83 of Huskur village. The plaintiff was cultivating the lands with the assistance of the borewell water. The land in Sy.No.75/2 of Huskur village measuring 35 guntas is adjoining to Sy.No.83 and the same belongs to defendant Nos.1 and 2. There is no irrigation facility to Sy.No.75/2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were depending on the rain and they requested the plaintiff to allow water for irrigation. The plaintiff permitted to take water without any charges. With this permission, defendant Nos.1 and 2 utilized the water for irrigating their lands during 1996-1997.
3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the year 1998, defendant Nos.1 and 2 allowed the plaintiff to cultivate the land in Sy.No.75/2 considering the fact that they were permitted to take water from the bore well freely for 2 years. Accordingly, the plaintiff cultivated the land of defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with his lands. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 offered to sell the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff accepted the offer and negotiation took place between them. Sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,22,500/-. This agreement reached between the parties is reduced into writing on 11.07.1999. On the date of entering into the agreement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have received Rs.25,000/- as earnest money. The khatha in respect of the plaint schedule property was not in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and it had to be transferred in their names and they agreed to do so. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were demanding additional amounts to meet their family necessities, thereby they have received the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff. Subsequent payments are narrated in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to get the sale deed executed, but defendant Nos.1 and 2 were postponing the same.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that prior to the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had entered into an agreement with one Sri Dayananda Reddy. The plaintiff learnt about this earlier agreement only after sometime. So he contacted Dayananda Reddy and Dayanand Reddy expressed his intention that if he receives Rs.45,000/- paid by him, it is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiff claims to have taken the consent of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and paid Rs.45,000/- in the form of cheque in favour of Dayananda Reddy. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 2 applied for change of khatha. It being not persuaded, it was rejected on account of there was postponement in registering of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff persuaded, showed interest and got the change of khatha on 23.08.2004. Inspite of change of khatha, there was an evasive attitude by defendant Nos.1 and 2. On further enquiry by the plaintiff, it was revealed th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
