Dismissed¶100

Somashekara v. L Sharadamma

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026RSA/1830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 1830 of 2025 (SP), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 06-03-2026 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur. Keywords: specific performance of contract; agreement of sale dated 10.10.2013 (Ex.P1); plea that agreement was security instrument for Rs.50,000/- loan; sale consideration Rs.2,50,000/-; advance Rs.2,30,000/-; balance Rs.20,000/-; Section 100 CPC; substantial question of law; dismissal of second appeal at admission stage; concurrent findings of fact; no re-appreciation of evidence; defendants adduced no evidence; Maddur / Mandya district courts; O.S.No.422/2016; R.A.No.36/2024.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no need to issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff and declined to frame any substantial question of law, holding that the appeal itself required dismissal at the stage of admission. ¶34

Somashekara Vs L Sharadamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶100

Issue for consideration

Whether any substantial question of law arises so as to admit and consider the regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, or whether the appeal is to be disposed of at the admission stage itself. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The Court found no need to issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff and declined to frame any substantial question of law, holding that the appeal itself required dismissal at the stage of admission.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 100 of the CPC the scope for interference in a second appeal is very narrow and limited; this Court does not sit in appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence and cannot impose its own opinion where a question of fact has already been decided by the concurrent negative findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court.

¶89

Key takeaways

Apart from a reply notice denying the sale transaction, the defendants took no steps either to repay the alleged loan or to seek return of the agreement, placed no documents and adduced no evidence, so nothing on record supported their loan-security version and their contentions were negated by both lower Courts.ratio¶83
No illegality was found in the impugned judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, and there was no need to consider framing substantial questions of law as urged by the appellants in the appeal memo.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Specific performance — Agreement of sale vs. loan-security plea — Regular Second Appeal dismissed at admission under S.100 CPC. Appellants/defendants did not dispute execution or signatures of the registered agreement dated 10.10.2013 (Ex.P1) for total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- with advance of Rs.2,30,000/-, but contended it was executed only as security for a Rs.50,000/- loan said to have been borrowed on 10.10.2012; beyond a reply notice they placed no documents, adduced no evidence, and took no steps to repay the loan or recover the agreement even after the plaintiff's legal notice dated 23.08.2016. Trial court (O.S.No.422/2016, IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, decree dated 15.04.2024) decreed specific performance with costs, directing execution of the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.20,000/- within 2 months; first appellate court (R.A.No.36/2024, Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, decree dated 21.07.2025) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree. High Court (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.): scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is very narrow and limited; concurrent findings on a question of fact cannot be re-appreciated; no substantial question of law framed; appeal dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1830 OF 2025 (SP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SOMASHEKARA

¶9

MANCHE GOWDA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

M P SHEELA

¶12

W/O SOMASHEKARA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571422.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA.P.N., ADVOCATE)

¶17

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

AND:

¶19

L SHARADAMMA W/O HUCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571422.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2025, PASSED IN RA NO.36/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.04.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.422/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

This appeal is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur in R.A.No.36/2024 dated 21.07.2025 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Maddur in O.S.No.422/2016 dated 15.04.2024.

¶30

The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of brevity.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

This Court does not find the need or necessity

¶34

to issue notice to the respondent/plaintiff, and this Court is not inclined to accept the version of the appellants/defendants to frame any substantial question of law, as the appeal itself requires to be dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are as follows.

¶36

According to the plaintiff, defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties, and they expressed their desire to sell the property to discharge their legal necessity, and the plaintiff expressed her willingness to purchase the suit schedule properties, and the sale agreement was executed on 10.10.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/and the defendants received an advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and promised to execute the sale deed within 3 years by receiving the remaining sale consideration amount.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is the case of the plaintiff that they

¶41

approached the defendants several times to execute the sale deed, which was dodged and prolonged by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 23.08.2016, which was duly served to the defendants, but they failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, left with no alternative the plaintiff has filed the suit to enforce the specific performance of the contract.

¶42

Upon summons being served, defendants appeared before the Court, filed a statement, denied the averments made in the plaint, and took up a plea that defendant No.1 borrowed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.10.2012 for the purpose of construction of a house at Mysuru and agreed to pay interest at 1% per month and discharged the loan within a year. In view of the fact that the defendants failed to discharge the loan amount, the plaintiff insisted the defendants execute the registered sale agreement for security of the loan in

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respect of the suit schedule properties and accordingly, the sale agreement was executed.

¶47

It is the contention of defendants that the sale agreement was misused by the plaintiff, as there was no intention for the defendants to sell the suit schedule property. It was only for the security purposes the agreement was executed in favour of the plaintiff with the intention to return the same after the repayment of the loan by the defendants. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶48

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed

¶49

the following issues for consideration.

¶50

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/and executed registered sale Agreement at 10.10.2013 by receiving an advance amount of Rs.2,30,000/-?

¶51

2. Whether plaintiff further proves that she was and has always been ready and willing to perform her part of contract?

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

3. Whether the defendants prove that the said agreement was executed by them as a security to loan transaction between them and the plaintiff?

¶56

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract?

¶57

5. Is the plaintiff entitle to the reliefs sought for?

¶58

6. What order or decree?

¶59

In order to substantiate the issues and prove their case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and two other

¶60

witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 whereas the defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 did not placed any material on record and no documents were marked.

¶61

Based on the pleadings and materials on record both oral and documentary, the trial Court upon consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties did not find favour with the contentions taken up by the defendants and being satisfied with the documents placed by the plaintiff. Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 - the sale agreement, legal notices, reply notice, the RTC

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

extracts, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in

¶65

respect of the suit schedule property in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 10.10.2013 by receiving balance sale consideration price of Rs.20,000/- within 2 months.

¶66

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.36/2024, challenging the judgment on the ground that the same was illegal, perverse and arbitrary and for non consideration of the materials on record.

¶67

Upon summons being served and on

¶68

appearance of the respondent therein who is the plaintiff, the first appellate Court upon reconsideration and reanalysing the entire materials placed on record both oral and documentary and also the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties formulated the following points for consideration.

¶69

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants any interference?

¶73

On going through the materials placed on

¶74

record, the first appellate Court did not find favour with the defendants, as the agreement that was executed as a document per se was not disputed, so also the signature, what was disputed was whether it is an agreement executed as security for repayment of loan or for agreement of sale. The first appellate Court agreed with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. No documents were placed, and no evidence was adduced in support of the case of the defendants. Denying the claim and the contentions of the plaintiff and therefore no materials, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶75

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants that the trial Court and the first appellate Court have committed a serious error in decreeing the suit when the defendants

¶76

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

categorically denied the agreement of sale by contending that it is a loan security instrument and that the amount borrowed was only Rs.50,000/- and there was no intention to transfer the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and that once a document is only for the purpose of repayment of loan, a security document, it cannot be construed as an agreement of sale. Therefore, contended that they are already willing to pay the amount received as loan to the plaintiff and the judgments rendered by both the Courts to be reversed and set aside. Whereas learned counsel for the appellants/defendants further contends that there was no intention of the defendants to sell the property to the plaintiff. It was only a transaction of a loan amount and for security purposes, this document was executed. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the document produced and relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex.P1.

¶79

It was incumbent upon the defendants to place sufficient material before the Court to controvert the

¶80

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

allegation or the contentions put forth in the plaint or in

¶83

the evidence. Apart from sending a reply notice and defending the case before the trial Court by merely contending that it is a loan agreement and not an agreement of sale, no steps are taken by the defendants to either repay the loan amount or to ask for return of the agreement filed as agreement to sell if it was the case of the defendants that it was only a loan amount executed for repayment and as security purposes. No action is taken by the defendants prior to the issuance of legal notice dated 23.08.2016.

¶84

According to the defendants, he had borrowed an alleged loan of Rs.50,000/- on 10.10.2012 for the construction of a house. Nothing prevented the defendants from asking the plaintiff to return the agreement of sale and to accept repayment of the loan, which has not been done. This aspect has been appreciated by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and having not found any cogent evidence, both oral and documentary, the

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

contentions put forth by the defendants have been negated. The same is affirmed by the first appellate Court, as no material is placed to take a different view other than what is taken by the trial Court.

¶89

In view of the provisions of Section 100 of the CPC, the scope for interference in a second appeal becomes very narrow and limited. It is for the plaintiff to have made out a case before the trial Court and the first appellate Court, where he has not been successful. Both the Courts have held in the negative. This Court is not sitting in the appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on record. Even if this Court were to be of

¶90

another opinion than that of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, it cannot impose its opinion, as a question of fact has already been decided. The same cannot be appreciated in the second appeal. This Court does not find

¶91

any good ground or cogent reason to appreciate the contention of the plaintiff to frame a substantial question of law for consideration of this appeal once again.

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:14028 RSA No. 1830 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

In view of the discussions above, when a trial Court and the first appellate Court, have already taken a decision with regard to the question of fact and have dealt with the matter elaborately by giving opportunity and also taking into consideration that no documents were placed on record or evidence adduced by the defendants. Apart from mere denial, in the reply notice that the transaction is not a sale but for security purposes for the loan taken by the defendants. Nothing is placed on record to believe the version of the defendants. I have perused the impugned order of both the Courts. I do not find any illegality, much less a need for consideration of framing substantial questions of law as urged by the appellants in the appeal memo. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order:

¶96