Dismissed¶47

Sri. Munegowda, v. Sri. Sriramappa

Civil – Specific Performance

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026RFA/1404/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 1404 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 06.03.2026 by Justice R. Nataraj. Appeal under Section 96 CPC against decree in O.S.No.123/2010 (Chickballapur) dismissing a specific performance suit and ordering refund of Rs.10,50,000/- advance sale consideration. Dismissed because the Co-ordinate Bench in RFA.No.300/2017 (decree dated 02.06.2023), to which the appellant was a party, had already allowed the respondents' appeal and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Keywords: specific performance, limitation, maintainability, Co-ordinate Bench finding, refund of advance sale consideration.

What did the court decide?

In view of the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA.No.300/2017, the appeal is dismissed. ¶47

Sri. Munegowda, Vs Sri. Sriramappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13823 RFA No. 1404 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1404 OF 2023 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUNEGOWDA, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PURADAGADDE, KASABA HOBLI, DIBBURA MAJARA, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK 562 102

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. HALESHA R G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. SRIRAMAPPA, S/O GUMMANNA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶17

SMT SAROJAMMA S/O SRIRAMAPPA,

¶18

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13823 RFA No. 1404 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI KESHAVA REDDY

¶22

S/O SRIRAMAPPA,

¶23

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶24

SRI KIRAN KUMAR

¶25

S/O SRIRAMAPPA,

¶26

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶27

KUM CHAITRA

¶28

D/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶29

ALL R/AT PURADAGADDE, KASABA HOBLI, DIBBURA MAJARA, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK 562 102

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K M., ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC. 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN OS. NO. 123/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT, AND ETC.,

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS

¶34

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13823 RFA No. 1404 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.123/2010 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur, by which the suit for specific performance of the contract was dismissed and refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.10,50,000/- was ordered.

¶40

When this appeal is listed for orders, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents had filed RFA.No.300/2017 challenging the very same judgment and decree by which the trial Court directed them to refund a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2023 in RFA.No.300/2017 had allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He therefore contends that this

¶41