Karnataka High Court Sri A.S. Nagaraju vs Sri. Somashekaraiah on 13 September, 2022 1 RSA No. 854 of 2014 DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2014 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A.S. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE SUBBANNA, AGED 52 YEARS, 2. SRI. A.N. LOKESHA S/O A.S. NAGARAJU, AGED 29 YEARS, 3. SRI. A.N. AMBARISH, S/O A.S. NAGARAJU, AGED 27 YEARS, PRESENT ADDRESS Digitally signed by ALL ARE R/A NO.65, SUCHITRA M J KALLAPPA LAYOUT, Location: High AMRUTHAHALLY, Court Of BANGALORE 92. Karnataka ... APPELLANTS (BY MR: K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE) 2 RSA No. 854 of 2014 AND: SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH, S/O LATE CHANDRAYAPPA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O NO.227, VEERANDANAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 561 211 ... RESPONDENT (BY MR: H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.3.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.173/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 23.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.187/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., KORATAGERE. THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 RSA No. 854 of 2014 JUDGMENT Even though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellantsdefendants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed in O.S.No.187/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Koratagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedcule property by receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.30,000/, which was confirmed in R.A.No.173/2008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri vide judgment dated 13.03.2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for 4 RSA No. 854 of 2014 brevity) dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendants. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 22.12.2004 in respect of the schedule property. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property and they have executed an agreement for sale dated 22.12.2004, agreeing to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.1,30,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and accepted the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendants were not ready and willing to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell. 5 RSA No. 854 of 2014 5. After service of summons, the defendants have appeared before the trial Court represented by their Advocate. They have not filed any written statement and it was taken as nill. 6. On the basis of these pleadings, the following points came to be framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves execution of suit agreement dtd.221204 by the defendants in favour of plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract? 3. What Order? 7. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 in support of his contention. The defendants have not crossexamined the plaintiff's witnesses, no