Dismissed¶56

Sri H L Narayana v. Sri H G Eshwar

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025RSA/1276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance; sale agreement dated 06.08.2021 versus defendant's plea of 'security document' for Rs.5,00,000/- loan; advance Rs.6,50,000/- of total Rs.7,50,000/-; concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld; no substantial question of law framed; RSA No. 1276 of 2025 dismissed under Section 100 CPC; High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh J.), 18.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The defendant's plea that the agreement was only a security document for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was not substantiated by any material beyond his self-serving statement, whereas the plaintiff proved the sale agreement by examining himself as P.W.1 together with two witnesses. ¶49

Sri H L Narayana Vs Sri H G Eshwar — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the document executed by the defendant on 06.08.2021 was a sale agreement or merely a security document for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

¶49

Ratio / Principle

With substantial payment of Rs.6,50,000/- made against the total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-, no delay on the plaintiff's part, and no cogent evidence led by the defendant, the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on both question of fact and question of law were correct.

¶53

Key takeaways

No ground was found to admit the second appeal or to frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under S.100 CPC dismissed; concurrent findings upheld. Suit O.S.No.211/2022 (Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal) decreed specific performance of a sale agreement dated 06.08.2021 under which the defendant received advance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- against a total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-, with one year fixed to complete the transaction. The defendant's written-statement plea that the document was only security for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- failed for want of any material beyond his self-serving statement; the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement through P.W.1 and two witnesses and showed no delay in seeking specific performance. The First Appellate Court (R.A.No.135/2024, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, judgment and decree dated 22.07.2025) confirmed the Trial Court's decree dated 21.11.2024. H.P. Sandesh J. found no ground to admit RSA No.1276 of 2025 or frame any substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal on 18.12.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1276 OF 2025 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H.L. NARAYANA S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHAIAH AGED 69 YEARS R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK-572130 TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. H.G. ESHWAR S/O LATE GANGAVEERANNA AGED 46 YEARS R/O K. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK-572130 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PUNITHA C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.211/2022 ON THE FILE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard

¶25

learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator-respondent.

¶26

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent

¶27

finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

¶28

The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that defendant has executed a sale agreement on 06.08.2021 by receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- as against total consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is also contented that time is the essence of contract and one year time was fixed to complete the sale transaction. But, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, legal notice was issued in terms of Ex.P5 and the same

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

was served and no reply was given. Therefore, filed the suit for

¶33

the relief of specific performance.

¶34

The defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the said document is only a security for the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶35

The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Exs.P10. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D7 and except self-serving statement with regard to it is only a security document executed towards loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, not examined any of the witnesses.

¶36

The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 as well as two witnesses, who deposed before the Court with regard to sale transaction is concerned, accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted the relief of specific performance, accepting the case of plaintiff.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The appellant has filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court contending that it was only a security document and not the sale agreement. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in view of the grounds which have been urged in the first appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court has committed an error in accepting the sale agreement and rejecting the contention of the defendant. He admits that plaintiff is financially sound and he is capable of paying Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, the defendant had borrowed loan from the bank and had mortgaged his self-acquired properties by executing a mortgage deed as per Ex.D7 which includes the suit schedule property and taking into note of all these materials, comes to the conclusion that defendant was in need of money. Hence, executed the sale agreement and plaintiff also proved the very execution of sale agreement by the defendant and the Trial Court has not committed any error and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that both the Courts have committed an error in ignoring the fact that suit schedule properties are not free from encumbrance and they were subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.211/2022 and the scheduled properties are mortgaged in favour of Union Bank of India. The counsel also contend that both the Courts committed an error in not considering Sections 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act and merely because Ex.P1 has been admitted by the defendant, without proving the contents, there cannot be any judgment and decree for specific performance. Hence, this court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the caveatorrespondent would submit that both the Courts without taking note of the material on record, committed an error in passing an order. However, the document is admitted, but only contention was taken that it was only a security document and the same is not proved and substantiated by placing any material, except the self-serving statement of P.W.1. Hence, there is no perversity in the finding of Trial Court and the First

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Appellate Court. Hence, no ground is made out to allow the appeal.

¶49

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for caveator-respondent and also considering the pleadings of plaintiff and defendant, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant executed an agreement of sale and received the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- as against Rs.7,50,000/- and time was the essence of contract and one year time is fixed and agreement is of the year 2021. When the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale agreement, notice was issued and no reply was given and hence filed the suit in 2022 itself. Though, it is contented that it is only a security document, in order to prove the same, the defendant except self-serving statement, not placed any material on record. On the other hand, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two witnesses for proving the sale agreement. When there was no delay on the part of the plaintiff in seeking the relief of specific performance and 11 months time was fixed and immediately, the plaintiff has acted upon and also amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid as against

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:54299 RSA No. 1276 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Rs.7,50,000/- and when substantial payment was made and when the defendant did not come forward and not substantiated his defence by leading any cogent evidence, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of the same while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and both question of fact and question of law are considered by both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.

¶54