ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Regular First Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 (SP), whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 was partly allowed setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2007 passed in O.S. No. 4152/2003 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, CCH-8, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’). 3. It will be useful to advert to the relevant factual matrix in which the present appeal has traversed to this Court. One M. Anjanappa S/o Munisonnappa (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘defendant no. 1’) was the original owner of property bearing Site No. 3, Katha No. 1197, carved out of Sy. No. 39 of Lingarajapuram Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’). On 15.04.1981, M. Anjanappa executed a registered General Power of Attorney (hereinafter referred to as ‘GPA’) in favour of one T. Ramaiah. Thereafter, on 27.01.2001, the aforesaid T. Ramaiah, the GPA-holder, entered into an Agreement of Sale of the suit schedule property in favour of respondent no. 1. T. Ramaiah, the GPA-holder, died on 03.07.2001. 4. The appellant purchased the suit schedule property from the aforesaid owner M. Anjanappa vide a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.2003 for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,62,500/-. On the same day, by way of abundant caution, the appellant insisted upon a cancellation of the registered GPA Deed dated 15.04.1981. Accordingly, the Registered instrument being the GPA Deed was cancelled, even though the GPA-holder T. Ramaiah had, as noted in the preceding paragraph, passed away way back, on 03.07.2001 itself. 5. On 18.06.2003, respondent no. 1 filed O.S. No. 4152/2003 before the Trial Court for specific performance, inter alia, seeking a direction against the defendants therein to execute a Registered Sale Deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the entire pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, dismissed the suit for specific performance vide order dated 30.08.2007. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the entire pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, dismissed the suit for specific performance vide order dated 30.08.2007. In appeal against the same, the High Court vide the Impugned Order, partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding the appellant and M. Anjanappa (since deceased and represented by the respondent no. 2) jointly and severally liable to return the sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- stipulated under the Agreement of Sale dated 27.01.2001 along with interest @ 6% per annum. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT: 6. Mr. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted at the outset, that the High Court in the Impugned Order fell in error in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, without appreciating all the contentious issues framed by the Trial Court. It was contended that the High Court erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant to pay the alleged sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, alongwith M. Anjanappa, notwithstanding the fact that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 as per the Agreement of Sale dated 27.01.2001 in respect of the suit schedule property. 7. It was further argued that High Court gave unnecessary attention to the concept of “unjust enrichment” and invoked the alleged indemnity clause, even though these points were not raised before the Trial Court. Further, it was submitted, that the High Court attached undue importance to the “doctrine of subrogation” in Paragraph 36 of the Impugned Order, which is inapplicable to the case in hand, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 140 1 [Rights of surety on payment or performance - Where a guaranteed debt has become due, or default of the principal debtor to perform a guaranteed duty has taken place, the surety, upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for, is invested with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor] of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. RESPONDENTS IN ABSENTIA: 8. Despite notice having been validly served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION: 9. Having considered the matter, it is clear that the original plaintiff- respondent no. RESPONDENTS IN ABSENTIA: 8. Despite notice having been validly served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION: 9. Having considered the matter, it is clear that the original plaintiff- respondent no. 1 had given money to T. Ramaiah under the Agreement of Sale in his capacity as the GPA-holder, for and on behalf of the defendant no. 1 (father of respondent no. 2), who is also the original land-holder. Since both the Courts below have held that there was no proof of the respondent no. 1 being ready and willing to get the Sale Deed registered from the defendant no. 1, the prayer for grant of relief of specific performance in his favour had been rejected. 10. On this count, we totally agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Courts below and endorse the same. Further, the respondent no. 1 himself has not preferred any appeal/cross-appeal against the order impugned. The only grievance the appellant has now is with respect to the liability fastened on him in the light of his stand that he was a subsequent purchaser from the defendant no. 1 and had paid the entire consideration amount and got the suit schedule property transferred to him by a Registered Sale Deed. Thus, as rightly submitted, he is not liable for any money which may have exchanged hands between the respondent no. 1 and defendant no. 1 i.e. the vendor. The liability to repay any amount taken/accepted by the defendant no. 1 is solely that of the respondent no. 2 being the legal heir of the original vendor/executor of the Agreement of Sale in favour of respondent no. 1. The appellant having successfully established himself as a bona-fide purchaser and the respondent no. 1 having failed to establish a case for specific performance against defendant no. 1, any claim of refund of money paid can only be satisfied in law by the legal heirs of defendant no. 1-M. Anjanappa. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid, the direction in the Impugned Order to direct the defendant no. 1 (the father of respondent no. 2 herein) and the appellant to return the sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- with accrued interest @ 6% per annum from 23.06.2001 till realisation appears to be palpably unjustified in law and on facts. The legal heirs of the original vendor/defendant no. 1 (the father of respondent no. 2 herein) and the appellant to return the sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- with accrued interest @ 6% per annum from 23.06.2001 till realisation appears to be palpably unjustified in law and on facts. The legal heirs of the original vendor/defendant no. 1 in the suit being arrayed as parties before the High Court as also this Court, viz. respondent no. 2 herein, and there being no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no. 1, it is clear that respondent no. 2 would have to repay the amount in question to respondent no. 1. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned is modified to the extent that the liability to return the sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- with accrued interest @ 6% per annum from 23.06.2001 till realisation as also the cost, shall be satisfied by the respondent no. 2 only. The appellant is absolved of any liability to make any payment under the Impugned Order, and any findings of the High Court apropos liability in this regard qua the appellant are set aside. 13. No order as to costs. I.A. No. 52620/2024 [Exemption from filing Official Translations] is allowed.