RAHAMATHULLA SAHEB vs SMT. JYOTI W/O. PRANESH,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100550 OF 2026 (SP-)
BETWEEN:
RAHAMATHULLA SAHEB S/O. IMAM SAHEB,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RD
R/O. 3 COLONY, HAMPASAGAR VILLAGE,
TQ. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. BALLARI-583212.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. JYOTI W/O. PRANESH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD CUM AGRICULTURIST,
RD
R/O. 3 COLONY, HAMPASAGAR VILLAGE,
TQ. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. BALLARI-583212.
BHARATHI
H M
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 28.04.2026 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN R.A.NO.07/2025 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.219/2017 AND
DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.219/2017 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Date: 2026.11.05
14:33:43 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned
Counsel for the Respondent.
2. The defendant in OS No.219/2017 on the file of
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli has
maintained this regular second appeal.
3. The plaintiff namely Smt. Jyothi instituted the
suit in OS No.219/2017 for the relief of specific
performance of contract. According to her the defendant is
the absolute owner of the suit property bearing
Sy.No.387B/2 measuring 2.78 acres situated at
Hampasagar Village of H.B.Halli Taluk. It is stated that
defendant offered to sell the suit property to her for a
valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, pursuant to which
the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property.
Accordingly, an agreement of sale executed between them
on 26.12.2014 where under the defendant received sum of
Rs.4,80,000/- as advance sale consideration amount,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
agreeing to execute a registered sale deed within 3 years
from the date of agreement. She alleges that afterwards in
spite of repeated demands, the defendant dragged on the
execution of sale deed and finally, she got issued a legal
notice dated 27.11.2017 calling upon the defendant to
execute a registered sale deed by receiving balance sale
consideration. Though such notice was duly served on the
defendant on 29.11.2017, he failed to comply with the
demand. Hence, she filed the suit for specific performance
of contract.
4. On service of suit summons, the defendant
appeared before the trail court, filed his written statement
and contested the suit. The defendant in his written
statement stated that the plaintiff is money lender, who is
doing money lending business without license. He further
stated that due to his ill health, he borrowed Rs.50,000/-
from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the amount together
with interest at the rate of 5% per a month. He stated that
at the time of lending the money, the plaintiff demanded
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
him to execute a promissory note as security for the loan,
and the plaintiff taking undue advantage of his innocence,
took him to Sub-Registrar Office at H.B.Halli and got
registered an agreement of sale in her favour. The
defendant claims that he has repaid the entire loan
amount along with interest to the plaintiff in the month of
July-2016. He claimed that on receiving the legal notice,
he got surprised about the facts alleged therein and he
had approached the plaintiff along with elders, which point
out time the plaintiff refused to talk to him. He also
contended that he had no absolute right to sell the suit
property as it is an ancestral property of his family. In the
said circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court framed necessary issues based
on the pleadings of the parties and recorded the evidence
adduced by them. Afterwards the trial court heard the
arguments and decreed the suit vide its judgment dated
13.01.2024.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
6. The defendant challenged the judgment and
decree of the trial court by preferring the appeal in RA
No.7/2025. The first appellate court after re-appreciating
the materials on record held that the trial court has not
committed any illegality or perversity in appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence on record. Accordingly, the
first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the judgment and decree of the trial court. Feeling
aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this regular second
appeal.
7. Sri Rajashekhar Burji, learned Counsel for the
Defendant vehemently submitted that the transaction
between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan
transaction, which was borrowed on account of ill health of
the defendant and that the plaintiff managed to obtain a
registered agreement of sale by misusing the illiteracy of
the defendant. He submitted that the defendant has
proved his contention by examining two witnesses, who
were present at the time of the loan transaction and that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
the courts below have failed to appreciate their evidence in
proper perspective. He further submitted that as per the
version of the plaintiff she has paid major portion of the
sale consideration amount i.e. Rs.4,80,000/- to the
defendant at the time of execution of the agreement of
sale and she is due only a sum of Rs.20,000 and to get a
registered sale deed. He submitted that the plaintiff has
not offered any explanation for her inaction in the matter
for nearly three years, which creates suspicion regarding
genuineness of the alleged agreement. He also submitted
that the non- issuance of a reply to the legal notice cannot
be treated as a proof of admitting the case of the plaintiff.
Thus, he contended that the findings recorded by the
courts below suffer from serious errors of law and facts
and contrary to the settled principles of law. Hence, he
prayed to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit.
8. As noted above, the plaintiff maintained the suit
for specific performance of contract based on a agreement
of sale dated 26.12.2014 in respect of land bearing
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
Sy.No.387/B measuring 2.78 acres situated at
Hampasagar village, H.B.Halli taluk. Admittedly, the
plaintiff had issued a legal notice on 27.11.2017 calling
upon the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in
terms of the agreement of sale dated 26.12.2014. The
said notice was duly served on the defendant on
29.11.2017. Despite such service, the defendant chose not
to give reply. The defendant, in his written statement, has
contended that on receiving of the legal notice, he was
surprised and then he immediately approached the plaintiff
along with the elders. He alleges that at that point of time
the plaintiff had refused to talk to him. However, the
defendant adduced no evidence before the courts below to
substantiate the above contention.
9. The trial court while appreciating the material
on record, observed that there are sufficient evidence on
record to hold that the defendant has executed the
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in the presence
of the witnesses, agreeing to sell the suit property in her
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
favour for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and that he
has received Rs.4,80,000/- as advance consideration
amount, agreeing to execute a registered sale deed within
three years by receiving balance sale consideration of
Rs.20,000/-. The trial Court also noticed that the children
of the defendant namely Mabusab and Rafiq Sab are the
consenting witnesses to the said document.
10. The plaintiff has examined the attesting
witnesses and the scribe of the agreement to sell, to
support her case. The trial court found the testimony of
these witnesses is reliable.
11. The trial court, while appreciating the
contention of the defendant that he had executed a
promissory note while borrowing hand loan of Rs.50,000/-
from the plaintiff, held that he has not placed any material
evidence on record to prove any fraud or cheating played
by the plaintiff. Thus, the trial court concluded that the
defendant executed the agreement of sale in question in
favour of the plaintiff for his legal and family necessities
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
and thereafter he failed to perform his part of contract
though the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform
her part of obligation. Accordingly, the trial court decreed
the suit.
12. The first appellate court, while appreciating the
contentions of the defendant, noted that the defendant
has failed to specifically aver about the date of borrowing
hand loan from the plaintiff. Further, the first appellate
court considering the statements of DW-2 and DW-3
expressing their ignorance about the date of sale
agreement and the date of hand loan allegedly borrowed
loan from the plaintiff, opined that the trial court rightly
disbelieved their testimony. The first appellate court did
not accept the contention of the defendant that he
executed the registered agreement of sale under the
impression that the plaintiff was obtaining a promissory
note when he personally went to the office of Sub-
Registrar and executed the document. Thus, it becomes
clear that the first appellate court has properly considered
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
all the contentions put forth by the defendant challenging
the judgment and decree of the trial court and assigned
reasons for concurring with the findings recorded by the
trial court.
13. The defendant has directed this second appeal
against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts
below. It is well settled that normally the concurrent
findings on facts are not interfered with unless the factual
findings are perverse. In the present case, the defendant
has not pointed out any perversity committed by the
courts below either in appreciating the evidence on record
or in applying correct legal position. The failure on the part
of the defendant to give a reply immediately on receipt of
the legal notice, execution of a registered sale agreement
in favour of the plaintiff coupled with the testimony of PW-
2 to PW-4 make it amply clear that there is no merit in the
defense put forth by the defendant. Hence, this Court
holds that no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in the appeal.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17752
RSA No. 100550 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020105872026
14. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed .
Pending applications if any, stand disposed
of, as they do not survive for consideration.
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
HMB- Upto para 11
RH-Para 12 to end
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 65