Dismissed

Sri K G Onkarappa v. Sri K Sunil Kumar

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024RSA/53/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against specific performance was dismissed. The Court held that the plaintiff proved execution of a sale agreement and payment of consideration. The defendants failed to prove the transaction was a loan, so the lower courts' findings were upheld.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; lower court judgments and decrees were confirmed; sale deed to be executed by defendants.

Sri K G Onkarappa Vs Sri K Sunil Kumar — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2022 (SP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K.G. ONKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

¶8

SRI. K.G. VIDHYADHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SON OF LATE K.G ONKARAPPA,

¶9

SRI. K.G LOHITASVA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G. ONKARAPPA,

¶10

Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. PADMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE K.G. ONKARAPPA,

¶12

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/AT KOTEHAL VILLAGE, B. DURGAE HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 523.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. K. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O G. KALLESHAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MACHIKERE VILLAGE, JAGALIURU TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 553.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.04.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 39/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 29/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOLALKERE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This RSA is filed challenging the Judgment and

¶25

decree dated 03.04.2021 passed in R.A No.39/2020 by the

¶26

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶28

the Judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.29/2017 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere.

¶29

For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff.

¶30

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶31

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 is the father of defendant Nos.2 to 4. The defendant No.2 is the friend of the plaintiff. It is contended that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were facing a economic situation. To meet their financial crisis and to the house old necessities, they decided to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendants for the consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, and the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶34

defendants demanded the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to discharge the bank loan. The plaintiff agreed to pay the advance amount to the defendants. The defendants received an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a registered agreement of sale dated 30.09.2014, and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid within 3 years from the date of execution of an agreement of sale. The defendants also agreed to make a sketch copy of the suit schedule property to clear all the encumbrances standing over the suit schedule property. The defendants have not shown

¶35

any interest in performing their part of the contract. The plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of a contract, and he has expressed his willingness to pay the remaining balance consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants, calling upon them to receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. The defendants replied to the legal notice. Hence, a cause

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶38

of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract.

¶39

The defendant No.1 filed a written statement

¶40

denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff is doing money lending business, but not an agriculturist. There was a transaction between the husband of defendant No.4 and Ajay Kumar, and they are friends, and to develop the family of the defendants, they were talking with the husband of defendant No.4, making

¶41

a transaction with the relative of the plaintiff by name, Ajay Kumar and obtained the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff, at that time, the defendants to secure all the loans executed an agreement of sale in respect of the landed property. Further, the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheques on various dates. Hence, it is contended that the said transaction is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶44

The Trial court, based on the aforesaid

¶45

pleadings, framed the relevant issues.

¶46

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW1 and marked 6 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. The trial Court, on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the plaintiff's suit and directed the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.29/2017 preferred appeal in R.A.No.39/2020 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The appellate court, on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶50

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that, the plaintiff failed to prove that, he was ready and willing to perform his part of a contract. He submits that, the courts below have not properly exercised judicial discretion vested under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. He submitted that, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants is a loan transaction and Ex.D1 was executed for security purposes. The defendants have no intention to sell the suit schedule property. The said aspect was not considered by the courts below. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶51

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶52

The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined

¶53

himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3. Though the defendants have admitted regarding the execution of a sale agreement, the defendants have taken a defence that they have taken a loan and executed a sale

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶56

agreement for the purpose of the security. The defendants, except the evidence of DW1 have not examined any witness to establish that, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction, and in view of the admission by the defendants regarding the execution of a sale agreement, the plaintiff has proved that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/and executed an agreement of sale marked at Ex.P1. The plaintiff also examined attesting witnesses to Ex.P1 as PW2 and PW3. PW2 and PW3 have supported the case of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the sale agreement and receiving the advance consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the plaintiff had proved the execution of an agreement of sale and payment of part of the consideration amount. The defendants have failed to establish that it is not a sale transaction, but a loan transaction. Both the courts below were justified in

¶57

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49883 RSA No. 53 of 2022

¶58

passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments or any substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) Appeal is dismissed .

¶61

ii) The Judgments and Decrees passed by the

¶62

Courts below are hereby confirmed.

¶63

iii) No order as to the costs.

¶64

iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA

¶65

No.1/2022 does not arise for consideration. Accordingly IA

¶66

No.1/2022 is disposed of.

¶67

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶68

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Sri K G Onkarappa v. Sri K Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K G Onkarappa v. Sri K Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. D. S. Anusha Vs Sri. K. N. Ramegowda

Sri R Raja Rajan Vs Smt R Maria Deepthi

Sri.Mahendra B. Vs Smt. Namitha S. Pai

Sharadhamma Vs Executive Engineer

Smt Sukanya Vs Sri Syed Abdul Ghani

Sri C B Muddukumar Vs the Chief Secretary