Dismissed¶79

Krishna Naik v. Ravikumar K T

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025RSA/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Regular Second Appeal; RSA No.141 of 2025 (SP); Section 100 CPC; concurrent finding; specific performance of contract; registered agreement of sale Ex.P.1; fraud plea; security-document plea; sheep transaction; earnest money Rs.7,00,000/-; balance Rs.3,00,000/-; Sub-registrar; admissions of D.W.1-D.W.7; identification of signatures, LTM and photographs; no substantive question of law; O.S.No.114/2019, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur; R.A.No.45/2024, III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura; Krishna Naik and others v. Ravikumar K.T.; Justice H.P. Sandesh; appeal dismissed on 10.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The appellants' contention that Ex.P.1 was only a document of security, as urged by the defence, cannot be accepted. ¶75

Krishna Naik Vs Ravikumar K T — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether Ex.P.1, the registered agreement of sale, was validly executed for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, or was obtained fraudulently / executed only as security for a debt of Rs.3,00,000/- arising from a sheep transaction. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The appellants' contention that Ex.P.1 was only a document of security, as urged by the defence, cannot be accepted.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

There is no ground to admit the second appeal or frame any substantive question of law, as there is no error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶75

Key takeaways

D.W.1 to D.W.3 went to the Sub-registrar's office and, notwithstanding their denial of signing, had knowledge of the sale; the sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance payable of Rs.3,00,000/- stand borne out, and the admissions of D.W.1 to D.W.7 were taken note of by both courts below.ratio¶67
Though D.W.1 denied awareness of the alleged promise to receive earnest money and sell the suit property in the presence of witnesses, he did not deny the signature available on Ex.P.1, as extracted in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of the Trial Court's judgment.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Concurrent findings upheld — specific performance decree stands. In Regular Second Appeal No.141 of 2025 (SP) under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Karnataka (H.P. Sandesh, J.) declined to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur (O.S.No.114/2019, decree dated 21.12.2023) and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (R.A.No.45/2024, judgment dated 29.10.2024), whereby specific performance of the registered agreement of sale Ex.P.1 (total consideration Rs.10,00,000/-; earnest money Rs.7,00,000/- received; balance Rs.3,00,000/-) was granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants-appellants' pleas that Ex.P.1 was obtained fraudulently or was executed merely as security for a Rs.3,00,000/- sheep-transaction debt failed for want of any material on record; weight was laid on the registered nature of the document, execution before the Sub-registrar, identification of photographs, signatures and LTM on Ex.P.1, the admissions of D.W.1 to D.W.7 (several literate up to SSLC/PUC and signing in English), and D.W.1's non-denial of his signature on Ex.P.1. No substantive question of law arose and the second appeal was dismissed on 10.07.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KRISHNA NAIK

¶10

S/O LATE NARAYANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

GOWRAMMA W/O KRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶12

GANGADHARA NAIK S/O KRISHNA NALK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶13

GOUTHAMI D/O GANGADHARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

GAGANA D/O GANGADHARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶16

PRADHAN S/O GANGADHARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶17

APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, APPELLANT NO.3. ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUNDIHALLI VILLAGE HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAMESH NAIK L., ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AND:

¶24

RAVIKUMAR K.T., S/O LATE K.G.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KUNDIHALLI VILLAGE HOSUR HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-561208.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. K.A.HARIKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶27

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.114/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶31

learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

¶36

before the Trial Court that the defendants in order to overcome their legal necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties and executed registered agreement of sale on 03.04.2019 agreeing to sell the scheduled properties in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/and received earnest money of Rs.7,00,000/- and remaining balance amount payable is is Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also contented by the plaintiff that plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the sale agreement is obtained fraudulently by plaintiff in view of debt of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and obtained the said document. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of specific performance.

¶37

The Trial Court having considered the pleadings

¶38

of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence and accordingly the plaintiff got examined 3

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

witnesses including the plaintiff as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other hand, defendants have examined 7 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.7 and also got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The Trial Court having considered the material on record particularly, document is a registered document and D.W.3 is a consenting witness to the said document and also taken note of the material available on record, particularly the admissions on the part of witnesses and when the specific defence was taken that fraudulently obtained the document. The Trial Court having considered the documents which have been placed on record in paragraph No.52 comes to the conclusion that Ex.P.1 was signed by the parties and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have signed the same and there is a specific reference about the defendant agreeing to sell the suit properties and defendants having received a sum of Rs.7,00,000/executed the document and document is also dated 04.04.2019 and also there is a recital about the flow of

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

title to the defendants that it was an ancestral property and when such details are given in the agreement of sale and received the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance payment was only Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶46

The Trial Court also considered the evidence of witnesses in paragraph No.53 and made an observation that it is emerged during the course of evidence that D.W.3 during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he studied up to 10^th standard and D.W.6 is studied upto PUC and D.W.7 is studied upto 10^th Standard and subscribe their signature in English language, even the defendant No.3's wife is signed in English language. The defendant No.1 has signed the document in Kannada language. He has signed the document only after consulting 3 to 4 persons in his village and two of them are attesting witnesses and they are only knowledgeable persons and also taken note of if an executant of a deed is literate, there will be initial presumption that the executant

¶47

has affixed his signature only after understood its

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

contents. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendants that they had no opportunity to read the documents before signing it and the same also taken note of in paragraph No.54 and the other material available on record also taken note of. The suggestion made to the P.W.1 that defendants would pay Rs.3,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and pay the same within six months and really such a terms was agreed, why it was not incorporated in the Ex.D.1 and also taken note of Trial Court and D.W.1 also admits the suggestion that he had no burden to get the agreement in respect of sheep transaction, it means that he knew that Ex.P.1 is out agreement of sale and the suggestion was made to that the document exhibit came into existence in a fraudulent circumstances ought to have placed on material regarding the circumstances under which the document was obtained and nothing is placed on record and hence, the Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence as well as the admissions on the part of

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

witnesses who have been examined D.W.1 to D.W.7 granted the relief of specific performance and directed to receive balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and execute the document.

¶54

Being aggrieved by the said finding, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.45/2024 and Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, since they took the specific defence that they have executed the alleged sale agreement for security purpose in respect of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/relating to selling 90 sheeps of plaintiff and also taken note of the grounds which have been urged and whether it requires interference of this Court.

¶55

The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence as well as the defence which was taken that document Ex.P.1 is a security document in order to prove the said contention, nothing is placed on record as well as taken note of the documents of Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10 postal receipts and

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

acknowledgment which discloses that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have received the legal notice and apart from that reply was given setting out false reply that the document of exhibit came into existence as a security for payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the value of the sheep. In order to substantiate the same, no such material is placed on record. When the document is a registered document and also the witnesses have been examined before the Court that is also taken note of the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.25 that D.W.1 to D.W.3, D.W.6 and D.W.7 have identified the photographs of D.W.1 to D.W.3 on Ex.P.1 document that is a sale agreement and D.W.1 to D.W.3 have also admitted their signatures and the LTM found on Ex.P.1 document. Hence, it is clear that with the knowledge only, they have executed the document and identified their signature which have been found. The D.W.1 to DW3 have admitted the same and also taken note of that defendants have not raised any objections before the by stating that they have executed the

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

document only for security purpose and when they went to the Sub-registrar office and part of the document signing the same and also photographs are also identified. Now, they cannot contend that document came into existence only towards the security and the same is also taken note

¶62

of by the First Appellate Court while confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. In paragraph No.26 also taken note of defendants except their oral testimony have not produced any document have been observed that defendant No.1 has sold 90 sheeps of plaintiff in weekly santhe and remained due for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- was the defence was taken. In order to prove that defence that it was a transaction of payment of sale consideration towards the sheep, nothing is placed on record and reappreciated the same and comes to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove that it was a security document and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶63

Now, the counsel appearing for the appellant

¶64

would vehemently contend that both the Courts have

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

committed an error in considering the material on record particularly when the sale agreement was executed, according to them it was a sale agreement, but the same was only a guarantee for loan deed with respect to ancestral joint property executed by one coparcener by the right, title and interest. The counsel would vehemently contend that during the course of cross-examination, the suggestion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties has been admitted. But, the fact is that D.W.1 to D.W.3 went to the Sub-registrar office and though contend that all of them have not signed but all of them have knowledge about the sale of the property and also issued the sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- and balance payable only Rs.3,00,000/- and also admissions on the part of D.W.1 to D.W.7 was also taken note of by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and also answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses those who contend that they are the illiterates and not having the knowledge about the same, the same has been discussed by both the

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that some of them have studied up to P.U.C and S.S.L.C and also they have signed the document in English when they have been examined. But, only DW1 in his cross examination denies his ignorance as to the suggestion that in the presence of the witnesses, he had received the earnest money and promised to sell the suit property except denying that he is not aware of the same, but he did not deny the signature available in Ex.P.1 and the same is extracted in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the material record both in respect of the factual aspect as well as the question of law taken note of and also comes to the conclusion that when the document was executed before the Sub-registrar and the same is a registered document and the very contention that fraudulently obtained the document is not accepted since D.W.1 to D.W.3 photo was also found and identified in the document of the registered document and hence that document was obtained fraudulently was not

¶72

12 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:25557 RSA No. 141 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

accepted and when such being the case, the very contention of the appellant’s counsel that it was only a document of security as contented by the defence cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law when there is no

¶76

any error on the part of Trial Court and Appellate Court.

¶77