The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2023 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. S.K. MALTHESHA S/O S.M. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O ASHOKA ROAD SAGARA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. (BY SRI. B.N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. ESHWARAPPA S/O KANNAPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SURANAGADDHE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SAGARA TALUK-577401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALACHANDRA P. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10030/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIMRING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.35/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant had filed the suit for the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 10.01.2005 for sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and on the date of agreement an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as earnest money and paid an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- on 03.10.2007 and to that effect, there was a shara and in all made the payment of Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-. It is also pleaded that always ready and willing to have the sale deed. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement denying the very execution of the sale agreement. It is the contention of the defendant in the written statement that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. This defendant knows the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR father of the plaintiff. He used to go to the house of the plaintiff to do coolie work as this defendant and father of the plaintiff were faithful, the father of the plaintiff would always give this defendant Rs.500/- or Rs.1,000/- in addition to the wages of the defendant, once the father of the plaintiff told this defendant that he is having faith in him and asked this defendant to come and sign as witness for a transaction. This defendant being illiterate signed a document which was shown to him by the father of the defendant. Later, the father of the defendant paid Rs.25/- to this defendant stating that this is his wages for today and send this defendant back, other than this there was no sale agreement executed by this defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He has not executed any agreement of sale in favour of this plaintiff. He never took Rs.5,000/- and never gave any endorsement in favour of the plaintiff though he had received the legal notice dated 07.08.2010, but as this defendant was illiterate he had not replied for it. However, he had gone to the Sub-registrar office as per the notice - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR for 2 days, but as none were there, he had returned. The plaintiff in order to prove the case, examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand defendant cross-examined the P.W. but not led any defence evidence. 3. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the answer given by the GPA holder who has been examined as P.W.1 and the same is extracted in paragraph No.10 that he had no knowledge about the transaction and also categorically admits that plaintiff was not having any knowledge to give any details to file a suit, even not able to give any information to the advocate. But, he had obtained the power of attorney even he admits that for giving the details for the power of attorney also he was not having any knowledge and even for agreement also he was not having any knowledge and so also even at the time of making an endorsement on Ex.P.3. The Trial Court having taken note of this answer given by P.W.1 comes to the conclusion that there is no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR dispute regarding execution of agreement, but the dispute is only with regard to the contents of agreement as per the defendant, the father of the plaintiff took his signature as a witness to a document in the Sub-registrar office, such being the contentions taken by the defendant, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine the attesting witnesses to the agreement. But, none of the witnesses were examined before the Trial Court in order to the agreement and hence, dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court having re-considered the material on record and also the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has executed an agreement of sale deed dated 10.01.2015 for Rs.30,000/- by receiving Rs.20,000/- and also whether he was always ready. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record and also the answers given by P.W.1, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence the present second appeal is filed before this court. 5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this court that both the Courts have committed an error in disbelieving the case of plaintiff and also counsel would submit that sale agreement executed by the defendant is also a registered sale agreement and also counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts below erred while holding that plaintiff was of unsound mind when Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 came into existence. He failed to understand that the plaintiff was never a man of unsound mind. It was he who filed the suit. The Courts have jumped to a wrong conclusion to that effect. Plaintiff is sane when the contract was made and he is sane all along and on his instructions, the above appeal is also filed. The counsel would contend that even both the Courts have committed an error in even non ordering for return of the amount which was paid to the defendant. The counsel also contend - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR that the agreement of the year 2005 and the land agreed to sell the property is 12 gunta 8 Annas situated at Mankodu Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Sagar Taluk. 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing to the respondent would vehemently contend that defendant was working in the house of plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff was also taking care of him and misutilized the faith and obtained the document of sale agreement dated 10.01.2005. The counsel would vehemently contend that no such agreement was executed and they received money. Hence, both the Courts have taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 who gave the evidence before the Court that even plaintiff was not having any knowledge about giving of information or preparing for the GPA or for filing of case. 7. In reply to this argument counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that when the notice was issued, no reply was given, even did not choose to enter into the witness box to deny the very execution and only - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR mistake was committed by the appellant is that not examining the attesting witnesses of the agreement. 8. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and considering the material available on record, particularly the answer given by P.W.1 which has been extracted in paragraph No.10 and the P.W.1 categorically admitted that plaintiff was not in a sound state of mind to give any instructions to prepare the sale agreement as well as GPA. But, when the document was registered before the Sub-registrar and the same was a registered document. The Trial Court and also the Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the said fact into consideration and when the notice was also given, no reply was given and also even did not enter into the witness box under what circumstances the document came into existence. But, in a case of specific performance like the answer given by P.W.1, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court in not granting the relief of specific performance. However, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR when there is a registered document having made the payment of Rs.20,000 as earnest money at the time of registration of document and apart from that there is an endorsement in Ex.P.3 sale agreement for having received the additional amount of Rs.5,000/- after 2 years of agreement that is in 2007 even extending the time and ought to have taken note of the said fact by both the Courts and ought to have ordered to return the money. When this Court heard the matter in the earlier occasion, suggested the respondent/defendant to return the money. The counsel appearing to the respondent would submit that he had convinced his client to make the payment of Rs.25,000/- what he has received, but not interest. The counsel appearing to the respondent would contend that reasonable interest may be given. 9. Having considered the material and record, particularly when the registered document is available before the Court and also made the payment of additional amount of (cid:1)Rs.5,000/- and particularly this case is a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:26072 RSA No. 1360 of 2023 HC-KAR peculiar case since the P.W.1 who comes before the Court as GPA holder of plaintiff would admit that the plaintiff was not having any knowledge about anything preparation of GPA as well as sale agreement. When such being the peculiar circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondent to return the money of Rs.25,000/- with 4% interest within 2 months from today. Accordingly, R.S.A is
Decision
disposed of. 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.As’, if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64