M.K. Ramesha v. T.B.Hanumantharaj

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026RSA/461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RSA No. 461 of 2017 (SP), V Srishananda J., 08-06-2026: specific performance refused; return of earnest money upheld; readiness and willingness of plaintiff lacking; demand of reduced consideration Rs.2,00,000/- against agreed Rs.4,15,000/-; 7.5 months delay; concurrent findings of fact; no substantial question of law under S.100 CPC; O.S.No.114/2011 and RA No.5/2014, Chikkamagaluru courts; withdrawal of Rs.22,560/- deposit; Specific Relief Act invoked only in appellant's proposed question.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.22,560/- deposited by the defendant before the Trial Court, under due identification; admission declined and appeal dismissed. ¶ORDER

M.K. Ramesha Vs T.B.Hanumantharaj — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellant permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.22,560/- deposited by the defendant before the Trial Court, under due identification; admission declined and appeal dismissed.

¶ORDER

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit by considering irrelevant material placed on record by the respondents and not considering relevant material placed on record by the appellants. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

The decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference, being findings on factual aspects.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff was not willing to perform his portion of the contract: despite agreed consideration of Rs.4,15,000/-, he demanded Rs.2,00,000/- citing absence of road facility, a revised offer made only with intent to postpone execution of the sale deed, and rightly denied by the defendant.

¶15

Key takeaways

There is no dispute as to the sale agreement, which was marked at Ex.P.2.obiter¶13
After lapse of 7½ months of the time fixed in the agreement, the plaintiff did not choose to proceed with the sale transaction.ratio¶16
No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for further consideration; accordingly, admission was declined and the appeal dismissed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) by the plaintiff-purchaser against concurrent findings: agreement to sell 5 guntas dry land in Sy.No.112/5P2, Nellur village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagaluru at Rs.83,000/- per gunta, total Rs.4,15,000/-, earnest Rs.15,000/- paid; Trial Court (O.S.No.114/2011, decree dated 04.12.2013) refused specific performance but ordered refund of earnest money with 18% p.a. interest; First Appellate Court (RA No.5/2014, 18.11.2015) confirmed. High Court: plaintiff not ready and willing — he demanded Rs.2,00,000/- citing want of road access despite knowing the position at agreement stage, and let 7½ months of contractual time lapse; concurrent findings purely factual, no substantial question of law; admission declined, appeal dismissed; appellant allowed to withdraw defendant's Rs.22,560/- deposit under due identification.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2017 (SP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M.K. RAMESHA S/O M.K. SHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A SHASHI SADANA, IST CROSS BASAVANAHALLI EXTENSION CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

T.B. HANUMANTHARAJ S/O BHEEMARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. K.J. MEENAKSHI W/O T.B HANUMANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS (SINCE DEAD, R1 AND R3 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS FOR R2)

¶17

T.H. SHIVARAJ S/O T.B. HANUMANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ALL ARE R/A THEGUR RAMPURA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2019, LRS OF R2 ALREADY ON RECORD AS R1 AND R3)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.5/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.12.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.114/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard.

¶28

Plaintiff is the appellant who has preferred the

¶29

present second appeal challenging the concurrent finding of return of earnest money in respect of agreement to sell

¶30

which was subject matter of O.S.No.114/2011 dated 04.12.2013 confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.5/2014 dated 18.11.2015.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal

¶35

of the appeal are as under:

¶36

3.1. A suit for specific enforcement of agreement to

¶37

sell came to be filed by the plaintiff by contending that plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property which is an immovable property measuring 5 guntas dry land in Sy.No.112/5P2 of Nellur village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Dstrict (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

¶38

3.2. The sale agreement was entered into with a condition that plaintiff would purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.83,000/- per gunta in all sale consideration was to the tune of Rs.4,15,000/-.

¶39

3.3. However, the suit on contest came to be

¶40

decreed in part by allowing the refund of earnest money of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit within two months from the date of the order.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Being aggrieved by the allowing of the suit in

¶45

part and refusing to enforce the agreement to sell, plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.5/2014.

¶46

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and noted that plaintiff has utterly failed to establish before the Trial Court that he was always ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and as such, return of earnest money is a proper remedy ordered by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

¶47

It is also taken into consideration that the time to conclude the sale transaction fixed in the contract was not adhered to by the plaintiff.

¶48

Further, as against the total consideration of Rs.4,15,000/-, only sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and thereafter, did not show any interest in advancing the sale transaction and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is

¶53

before this Court, in this appeal.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly decreed the suit in part in allowing the return of earnest money resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on following substantial questions of law:

¶55

“1. Whether the Courts below had committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff in considering the irrelevant material placed on record by the respondents and non considering relevant material placed on record by the appellants?

¶56

2. Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff when the respondents has failed to produce necessary evidence and materials to show that there is readiness and willingness on their part to perform their part of contract in terms of the agreement on contrary imposing the burden on the plaintiff to show the readiness and willingness?

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

3. Whether the Court below is right in dismissing the suit of plaintiff by overlooking the promise constrained under Specific Relief Act?”

¶61

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments by reiterating the fact that the plaintiff was never willing to perform his portion of the contract which has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶62

He would further contend that after the decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant has deposited sum of Rs.22,560/- on 02.01.2014 in honest compliance of the directions issued by the learned Trial Judge which is the payment of earnest money from the date of suit till the deposit at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. and as such, nothing survives in the appeal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶63

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that there is no dispute as to the sale agreement marked at Ex.P.2.

¶68

But in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it was suggested that defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to get the registered sale deed. At that time, plaintiff demanded to sell the suit property for Rs.2,00,000/-, because there is no road facility.

¶69

This would clearly go to show that plaintiff was not willing to perform his portion of the contract as the sale consideration was in a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- and at the time of entering into sale agreement, he very well knew as to what is the approach to that is available to the suit land and only with an intention to postpone the execution of the sale deed, she had come with a revised offer of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been rightly denied by the defendant.

¶70

These aspects of the matter apart from the fact that after lapse of 7½ months of time fixed in the

¶71

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:27274 RSA No. 461 of 2017

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

agreement, plaintiff did not choose to proceed with the sale transaction.

¶75

Thus, the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference as they are the factual aspects and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for further consideration.

¶76