Sri J Ramesh Vs Sri S K Jayadevappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri J Ramesh Vs Sri S K Jayadevappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting admission, in the face of the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. +2 more

Court's answer

There is no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court; both Courts considered the factual aspects and the question of law, and the Court finds no ground to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law.

Ratio / Principle

The clear admission given by D.W.1 in cross-examination — that he is a B.A. graduate and executed Ex.P.1 in order to clear the loan and for family necessities — takes away the defence that the document came into existence only for the purpose of security; this admission was taken note of by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

Key takeaways

The contention that the suit was belated fails: three years' time was stipulated in the document for execution and the suit was filed within that period, as answered in paragraph No.15 of the Trial Court order; both Courts therefore committed no error in concluding that the plaintiff established the case for specific performance.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Specific Performance — Regular Second Appeal — Agreement of sale dated 20.06.2011 for Rs.1,70,000/- with Rs.1,50,000/- advance and Rs.20,000/- balance payable at registration — Defendant's plea that Ex.P.1 was executed only as security for a loan transaction rejected: his categorical admission in cross-examination (being a B.A. graduate, he executed the document to clear the loan and for family necessities) took away the defence, and was noted by both Courts below — Limitation: three-year period stipulated in the document expired 20.06.2014; notice issued 19.01.2017, hence suit well within time — Concurrent findings of the Trial Court (decreed specific performance, O.S.No.258/2017) and First Appellate Court (R.A.No.16/2021, remand I.A. rejected, trial judgment held not perverse) neither perverse nor erroneous — No ground to admit the appeal or frame any substantial question of law — Second appeal dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1765 OF 2024 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. J. RAMESH, S/O JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGARICULTURIST, R/O GARAGA VILLGE, SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-573114.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. S.K. JAYADEVAPPA, S/O KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GARAGA VILLAGE, SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-573114.

…RESPONDENT

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER-42 RULE-2 READ WITH SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2020 PASSED IN

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

O.S.NO.258/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the Trial Court is that the defendant had executed agreement of sale on 20.06.2011 in respect of the suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and balance amount of Rs.20,000/- was payable at the time of registration. It is contended that when the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed, notice was issued and suit was filed claiming the relief of specific performance. The

defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that it was only a loan transaction and not agreed to sell the property and the document was executed only for the purpose of security for the loan transaction.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead

evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and

examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7(a). On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and taken note of that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited with regard to the execution of the document is concerned and admitted the very execution of the document and also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 in his evidence as well as in the cross-examination. It is observed that the defendant has taken the contrary stand in the written statement that the document was executed for loan and taken the contention that when he was in need of Rs.1,20,000/-, he took the money on interest at the rate of 2%. But in the cross-examination, he categorically admits that the document was executed in order to clear the loan and also for family necessities and the same is extracted in paragraph No.12 and also admitted that the property was agreed to be sold for the family necessities. The Trial Court having taken note of this admission, comes to the conclusion

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

that the document was executed and also with regard to readiness and willingness also, while answering issue No.3 taken note of that only remaining amount was payable at the time of registration of the document i.e., Rs.20,000/- and substantial amount was paid. When the defence was taken that the suit was not in time, since three years period was mentioned in the document that expires on 20.06.2014 and notice was given on 19.01.2017 and the same is well within time, the same is discussed in paragraph No.15 and granted the relief of specific performance.

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.16/2021. The Appellate Court considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the plaintiff has established that the defendant executed sale agreement dated 20.06.2011 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- by receiving Rs.1,50,000/- as advance amount, whether the plaintiff has established that he is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract, as sought? The Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and did not accept the contention of the appellant/defendant. Even for remand of matter also, I.A. was rejected and comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the Trial Court is not perverse.

Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the

present second appeal is filed before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that when the defendant took the specific defence that it was only a document of security to return the

money, both the Courts failed to take note of the defence which has been raised and the appellant is not having any independent, exclusive right and ownership over the suit schedule property to alienate the ancestral family property and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not to have granted the relief of specific performance. The First Appellate Court has not at all discussed and considered the fact that one of the daughter of the appellant had filed a suit in O.S.No.2/2021 for the relief of partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property. Both the Courts have committed an error and hence this Court has to frame the substantial question of law.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and also on perusal of the material available on record, no dispute with regard to the execution of document of Ex.P.1 and it is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 in the crossexamination. Though contend that it is only a loan transaction and security document, but clear admission was given that he is a B.A. graduate and in order to clear the loan of his family and for the family necessity, he had executed the document of Ex.P.1. This clear admission given by D.W.1 in the cross-examination takes away the defence of the defendant that the document came into existence for the purpose of security. This admission was also taken note of by Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Apart from that, when the contention was taken that the suit is belated, the same is answered in paragraph No.15 of the Trial Court order that three years time was stipulated for execution of the document and within three years only, the suit was filed. When such material was available on record, both the Courts have not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the case for granting the

relief of specific performance. When there is no any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as the

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26931 RSA No. 1765 of 2024

HC-KAR

Appellate Court and when both the Courts considered the factual aspects and also the question of law, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59