Karnataka High Court
Shri Chandrashekhar S/O Gurulingappa ... vs Sri Dharmanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:715
RSA No. 100008 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100008 OF 2026 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. GURULINGAPPA MAYAKAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR
BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
R/BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMAPPA MANGOJI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI DHARMANAGOUDA S/O.BHEEMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed by
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
KALMATH
Location: High
Court of 2. SMT. SUJATHA W/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
3. SRI MANJUNATH S/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
4. SMT. LAXMI D/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:715
RSA No. 100008 of 2026
HC-KAR
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
5. KUMAR ANANDRAO S/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
6. SMT. DEEPA D/O. DHARMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
7. SMT. SHOBHA D/O. DHARMANAGODA PATIL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. SHINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR MASUTI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC DHARWAD IN OS NO.416/2013 DATED 01.02.2023
AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DHARWAD IN RA NO.11/2023
DATED 15.09.2025 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN OS NO.416/2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD DATED 01.02.2023
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND BY DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN RA NO.11/2023 BE SET ASIDE SO FOR
AS IT PERTAIN THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR
REFUND OF ADVANCE SALE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS.
2,70,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE
OF SUIT TILL REALIZATION BE SET ASIDE BY MODIFYING THE
SAID PART OF THE JUDGMENT AND TO GRANT MAIN RELIEF OF
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE GOT
EXECUTED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 DATED 16.06.2004, BY
ALLOWING THIS R.S.A. THROUGHOUT COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:715
RSA No. 100008 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2025 passed in R.A.No.11/2023 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad1, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.416/2013 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad2 , thereby the suit filed for specific performance of contract was dismissed with cost.
2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.14/1, measuring 08 acres 05 guntas, situated at Shinganhalli village, Dharwad district. Defendant No.1 offered to sell the suit schedule land for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for the said consideration. Consequently, on 16.06.2004, an agreement of sale was 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:715 RSA No. 100008 of 2026 HC-KAR executed. According to the plaintiff, he paid an earnest amount of Rs.2,70,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- and the balance amount is of Rs.5,000/-. However, the defendants did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Therefore, after issuing a legal notice dated 06.06.2013, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract.
4. After assessing the evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No.1 executed a registered agreement of sale dated 16.06.2004 and also failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is the finding of the Trial Court that defendant No.1 had obtained a loan of Rs.2,75,000/- from the plaintiff and that the alleged agreement of sale was executed only as security for the said loan. Based on these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
5. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree insofar as declining the main relief of suit for specific performance, but modified the decree by directing defendant No.1 to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:715 RSA No. 100008 of 2026 HC-KAR realization to the plaintiff. Thus, while confirming the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the First Appellate Court granted relief only to the extent of refund of the earnest amount. Being aggrieved by the non-grant of decree for specific performance, the plaintiff has preferred the present regular second appeal, raising various grounds and proposing substantial questions of law.
6. At the time of admission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff contended that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and have rendered perverse judgments. It was further submitted that once the execution of the agreement of sale is proved, both the Courts ought to have decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. On these grounds, learned counsel sought admission of the appeal by framing substantial questions of law.
7. Upon considering the admitted facts, it is not in dispute that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule land measurig 08 acres 05 guntas situated at Shinganhalli village, Dharwad district. It is also the plaintiff's case that the total sale consideration for this vast extent of land was fixed at -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:715 RSA No. 100008 of 2026 HC-KAR Rs.2,75,000/-, out of which Rs.2,70,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money. However, as held by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, defendant No.1 had borrowed a loan Rs.2,75,000/- from the plaintiff and that no agreement of sale was intended to be executed.
8. Upon considering the extent of land measuring 08 acres 05 guntas and the alleged sale consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that the consideration is disproportionate, rendering the alleged agreement of sale unbelievable. On the preponderance of probabilities, the defendants have successfully proved that the transaction was a loan transaction and not a sale transaction. Therefore, concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court do not warrant interference.
9. Furthermore, the alleged agreement of sale is dated 16.06.2004, whereas the plaintiff issued legal notice only on 06.06.2013, and the suit came to be filed on 25.06.2013, after a lapse of nearly nine years. Hence, the suit is clearly barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 19633. Even otherwise, under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the 3 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1963' -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:715 RSA No. 100008 of 2026 HC-KAR grant of specific performance is discretionary. Considering the disproportionate sale consideration vis-à-vis the extent of land, granting specific performance would result in unfair advantage to the plaintiff and cause undue hardship to the defendants. Therefore, both the Courts have rightly exercised their discretion in refusing the relief of specific performance. However, the First Appellate Court was justified in directing refund of the earnest amount of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, which does not call for interference.
10. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
11. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39