Karnataka High Court
Shri.Alappa S/O Bharma Mahar (Talawar) vs Shri.Gujappa S/O Gujappa Naik on 19 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220
RSA No. 100968 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100968 OF 2015 (SP-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI.ALAPPA S/O BHARMA MAHAR (TALAWAR)
DECEASED
1A) SMT. RATNAVVA
W/O HALAPPA MAHAR(TALAWAR)
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HALBHANVI VILLAGE,
TQ/DIST-BELGAUM-591104.
1(B) SHRI BHARAMA
S/O HALAPPA MAHAR(TALAWAR)
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O HALBHANVI VILLAGE,
TQ/DIST-BELGAUM-591104.
Digitally signed
by SAROJA 1(C) SHRI MAHANTESH
HANGARAKI
S/O HALAPPA MAHAR(TALAWAR)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 30 YEARS,
KARNATAKA OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
DHARWAD R/O HALBHANVI VILLAGE,
BENCH
DHARWAD TQ/DIST-BELGAUM-591104.
1(D) SHRI. DYAMANNA
S/O HALAPPA MAHAR (TALAWAR)
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O HALBHANVI VILLAGE,
TQ/DIST-BELGAUM-591104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANAND L. SANDRIMANI,
AND SRI SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (D))
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220
RSA No. 100968 of 2015
AND:
SHRI.GUJAPPA S/O GUJAPPA NAIK
AGE: 79 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HALABHANVI VILLAGE
TQ/DIST:BELAGAVI-591104.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
09.10.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGAVI, IN R.A.NO.213/2011 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.321/2007 DATED 07.06.2011.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2015 passed in 213/2011 by the II Additional District Judge, Belagavi2 and the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2011 passed in OS No.321/2007 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi3, whereunder the suit for specific 1 Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'first appellate Court' 3 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220 RSA No. 100968 of 2015 performance has been partly decreed by the Trial Court and the defendant has been ordered to refund the advance amount of ₹50,000/- together with interest at 24% pa., which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to specifically perform the Agreement of Sale dated 1.10.1974 entered into between him and the defendant. The defendant entered appearance in the said suit and contested the case of the plaintiff. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed 11 issues. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree 7.6.2011, partly decreed the suit and passed the following order:
Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220 RSA No. 100968 of 2015 24% p.a. from the date of agreement dated 10.6.1996 till realization of entire amount, within 2 months from the date of this order.
4. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred RA.No.213/2011. The plaintiff also preferred RA.No.202/2011. The first appellate Court heard both the appeals together and by common judgment and decree dated 9.10.2015, dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present second appeal.
5. It is forthcoming from the judgment of the Trial Court that issues 1 to 3 as to whether the plaintiff proves execution of the agreement and payment of the earnest deposit money have been answered in the affirmative.
Although the defendant had taken the contention regarding the limitation, the same is answered in the negative. However, the Trial Court while considering issue Nos.8 and 9 as to whether the suit is hit by Section 4 of -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220 RSA No. 100968 of 2015 the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 19784 and considering as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract, has noticed that the land of the defendant was granted land and having regard to the bar contained under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that granting of the relief of specific performance does not arise. Hence, the Trial Court has ordered for refund of the earnest deposit amount together with interest at 24% p.a.
6. The first appellate Court, upon a re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has affirmed the findings of the Trial Court with regard to the execution of the agreement. The first appellate Court has also noticed the relevant statutory provisions and also affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the suit transaction is hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act.
4 Hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act' -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10220 RSA No. 100968 of 2015
7. In view of the settled legal position as noticed by both the Courts, the appellants have failed in demonstrating that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.
8. Hence, the above appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits at the stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32