ORDER

The defendants have filed these appeals against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka in regular first appeal No. 129/93 decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The appeals are inter-linked with each other while C.A. No. 3750/98 is filed by defendant No. 2 who is the subsequent purchaser of the property, C.A. No. 3751/98 is by defendant No. 1 - the vendor.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit, O.S. No.10453/82 in the court of the additional city civil judge, Bangalore for a declaration that the sale deed dated 18.5.1981 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not a legal document; for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from alienating the property to any one else; from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, in the alternative for a direction to the first defendant for return of the advance consideration, the plaintiff had paid to him.

3. The case of the plaintiff shorn of unnecessary details was that she was tenant on a portion of the suit property under defendant No. 1. On 20th October, 1980 the parties (plaintiff and defendant No. 1) executed an agreement for sale of the property in her favour for a consideration of Rs. 29,500/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. It was stipulated in the agreement that the vendee will pay the balance consideration money within 18 months and on as receipt of the same, the vendor will execute the registered sale deed in her favour. Further case of the plaintiff was that the vendor-defendant No. 1 failed to abide by the terms stipulated in the agreement and sold the property to the defendant No. 2 vide the registered sale deed dated 18.5.1981. In such circumstance, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration and for specific performance of the agreement of sale as noted earlier. She asserted in the plaint that she has all along been ready and willing to pay the balance consideration money and is still ready to pay the same. Indeed the amount was deposited in the trial court after filing of the first appeal.

4.. The case of the defendant No. 1 was that the document annexed to the plaint which is purportedly a copy of the agreement for sale of the suit property was not the document executed by the parties. In the document executed by the parties, the consideration amount agreed by them was Rs. 33,000/- and not Rs. 25,500/-; that the period stipulated for payment of the balance amount was till 20th March, 1981 and not 18 months from the date of execution of the document. The defendant alleged that the so called agreement was a spurious and fabricated one and on the basis of such document, a decree for specific performance of contract should not be passed. It was the further case of the defendant that the document was executed on insufficiently stamped paper and such a document was not admissible in evidence. It was contended that in the absence of the original agreement, the copy produced by the plaintiff was not admissible.

5. The trial court framed certain issues, including issues relating to execution of the agreement, the terms stipulated therein and readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to abide by the terms of the agreement. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record held, inter alia, that in the absence of the original document before the court, the so called copy could not be relied upon by plaintiff for the purpose of the suit; that the document was insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence on that score. On the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to carry out her part of the contract also, the finding recorded was against the plaintiff. On such findings, the suit was dismissed.

6. In the appeal filed by t