MR V CHANDRASHEKAR M JAGADEESH, ,M. JAGADEESH vs MR MUNITHIMMA REDDY @ SUBBARAYAPPA — RSA/239/2010

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 19-Mar-2010

CNR: KAHC010116972010

Filing Number

RSA/239/2010

Filing Date

22-Jan-2010

Registration No

RSA/239/2010

Registration Date

22-Jan-2010

Judge

H.p.sandesh

Coram

H.p.sandesh

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

RSA ( 136 )

Sub-Category

SP-Specific Performance Suit ( 105 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MR V CHANDRASHEKAR M JAGADEESH, ,M. JAGADEESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR MUNITHIMMA REDDY @ SUBBARAYAPPA

  2. 2.NANJAMMA W/O LATE MUNI REDDY

  3. 3.MR.M.RAIRAM REDDY S/O LATE MIDDEMANE MUNISHAMIREDY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    H.p.sandeshView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA 239/2010 - V. Chandrashekar v. Munithimma Reddy & Others Court Decision The High Court of Karnataka (Justice H.P. Sandesh) allowed the second appeals and granted specific performance of a 1999 sale agreement. The plaintiff was directed to receive the property, with defendants ordered to execute the sale deed. Key Facts - 1999 Agreement: Plaintiff purchased agricultural land (35 guntas) in Huskur Village for Rs. 1,22,500 via document Ex.P1 dated 11.07.1999 - Payment: Plaintiff paid entire consideration including Rs. 45,000 via cheque to satisfy prior claimant Dayananda Reddy - Katha Issue: Property katha remained in defendants' names; mutation occurred only in 2004 - Breach: Defendants later executed sale deed in favor of third party (defendant No. 3) on 05.10.2004 Core Issues Resolved 1. Sale Agreement Validity: Court confirmed Ex.P1 is genuine, finding defendant No. 1's categorical admissions (through cross-examination) of signatures sufficient proof despite his denials 2. Payment Proof: Endorsements on Ex.P1 and witness testimony (PW5) established full payment, including Rs. 45,000 payment to Dayananda Reddy 3. Fraudulent Conduct: Sale to third party deemed collusive attempt to defeat plaintiff's rights; prior agreement with Dayananda Reddy fabricated 4. Defendant No. 2's Absence: Trial court erred in not drawing adverse inference against defendant No. 2 for refusing cross-examination Critical Reasoning - Defendant No. 1's own admission of multiple signatures on Ex.P1 and endorsements constituted quasi-admission of agreement - Document Ex.D1 (alleged prior agreement with third party) falsified by DW1's contradictory testimony regarding location and witnesses - Sequential evidence (Ex.P2/P3 showing 2004 mutation, immediately followed by sale deed) demonstrated intentional fraud - Court rejected "blank paper" defense as unsubstantiated Orders - Previous judgments set aside - Suit for specific performance decreed - Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 directed to execute sale deed - Plaintiff granted liberty to enforce agreement per law if defendants fail This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Final Hearing

    H.p.sandesh

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    V Srishananda

  8. 24-Feb-2025

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    T.G. Shivashankare Gowda

  9. 15-Oct-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    Ashok S.kinagi

  10. 30-Aug-2024

    Orders

    Ashok S.kinagi

  11. 12-Aug-2024

    Orders

    V Srishananda

  12. 18-Jul-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    V Srishananda

  13. 25-Jun-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    V Srishananda

  14. 14-Jun-2024

    Hearing - Interlocutory Appln

    V Srishananda

  15. 02-Mar-2023

    Final Hearing

    G Basavaraja

  16. 09-Jun-2015

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  17. 09-Jun-2015

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  18. 20-Dec-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  19. 13-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  20. 13-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  21. 11-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  22. 05-Nov-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  23. 31-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  24. 30-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  25. 11-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  26. 08-Oct-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  27. 27-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  28. 23-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  29. 20-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  30. 16-Sep-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  31. 20-Aug-2013

    Orders

    A.s.pachhapure

  32. 01-Mar-2013

    Orders

    V.suri Appa Rao

  33. 30-Jan-2013

    Orders

    Aravind Kumar

  34. 28-Jan-2013

    Orders

    Aravind Kumar

  35. 03-Jan-2013

    Orders

    B.S Patil

  36. 12-Dec-2012

    Orders

    B.S Patil

  37. 10-Oct-2012

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  38. 27-Sep-2012

    Orders

    S.abdul Nazeer

  39. 20-Sep-2012

    Admission

    S.abdul Nazeer

  40. 23-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  41. 13-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  42. 02-Feb-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  43. 31-Jan-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  44. 25-Jan-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  45. 23-Jan-2012

    Admission

    Ram Mohan Reddy

  46. 11-Mar-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  47. 09-Mar-2011

    Admission

    L.narayana Swamy

  48. 16-Sep-2010

    Admission

    Anand Byrareddy

  49. 19-Mar-2010

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  50. 22-Jan-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/239/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA 239/2010 - V. Chandrashekar v. Munithimma Reddy & Others Court Decision The High Court of Karnataka (Justice H.P. Sandesh) allowed the second appeals and granted specific performance of a 1999 sale agreement. The plaintiff was directed to receive the property, with defendants ordered to execute the sale deed. Key Facts - 1999 Agreement: Plaintiff purchased agricultural land (35 guntas) in Huskur Village for Rs. 1,22,500 via document Ex.P1 dated 11.07.1999 - Payment: Plaintiff paid entire consideration including Rs. 45,000 via cheque to satisfy prior claimant Dayananda Reddy - Katha Issue: Property katha remained in defendants' names; mutation occurred only in 2004 - Breach: Defendants later executed sale deed in favor of third party (defendant No. 3) on 05.10.2004 Core Issues Resolved 1. Sale Agreement Validity: Court confirmed Ex.P1 is genuine, finding defendant No. 1's categorical admissions (through cross-examination) of signatures sufficient proof despite his denials 2. Payment Proof: Endorsements on Ex.P1 and witness testimony (PW5) established full payment, including Rs. 45,000 payment to Dayananda Reddy 3. Fraudulent Conduct: Sale to third party deemed collusive attempt to defeat plaintiff's rights; prior agreement with Dayananda Reddy fabricated 4. Defendant No. 2's Absence: Trial court erred in not drawing adverse inference against defendant No. 2 for refusing cross-examination Critical Reasoning - Defendant No. 1's own admission of multiple signatures on Ex.P1 and endorsements constituted quasi-admission of agreement - Document Ex.D1 (alleged prior agreement with third party) falsified by DW1's contradictory testimony regarding location and witnesses - Sequential evidence (Ex.P2/P3 showing 2004 mutation, immediately followed by sale deed) demonstrated intentional fraud - Court rejected "blank paper" defense as unsubstantiated Orders - Previous judgments set aside - Suit for specific performance decreed - Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 directed to execute sale deed - Plaintiff granted liberty to enforce agreement per law if defendants fail This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case