Facts of the Case:

• Defendant No. 1 was the owner of the suit property bearing No. C.T.S. No. 1921/A of Gadag Betageri City Municipal area. (!)

• Defendant No. 2 was the constituted attorney of Defendant No. 1. (!)

• On or about 1-10-1978, Defendant No. 2 entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/- was paid as advance, and the plaintiff was allegedly put in possession. (!)

• The sale deed was to be executed within 3 years from the date of the agreement upon payment of the balance Rs. 10,000/- by the plaintiff.[1000077710001]

• Defendant No. 3 (appellant) purchased the suit property from Defendant No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 15.5.1984 for Rs. 50,000/-.[1000077710001]

• On or about 15.5.1984, the plaintiff made an enquiry at the C.T.S. Office and learned of the sale to Defendant No. 3.[1000077710001]

• The plaintiff served a notice dated 8.8.1984 on Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 demanding specific performance of the agreement dated 1.10.1978.[1000077710001] (!) (!)

• The notice to Defendant No. 1 returned unclaimed, and Defendant No. 2 did not reply. (!) [1000077710003]

• The plaintiff stated the cause of action arose on 8.8.1984 upon service of the notice and the defendants' failure to execute the sale deed. (!)

• In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged he demanded Defendant No. 2 to bring Defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration, but Defendant No. 2 postponed it. (!)

• The plaint contained no specific averment that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.[1000077710002] (!)

• The suit was filed almost six years after the agreement to sell.[1000077710029][1000077710011]

• No material was placed on record showing the plaintiff ever asked Defendant No. 1 (the owner) to execute the sale deed or tendered the balance consideration within the 3-year period or at any point prior to the notice.[1000077710011][1000077710014][1000077710029]

• In evidence, the plaintiff stated he was ready to pay the balance Rs. 10,000/- even on the date of deposition.[1000077710015]

• The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no averment or proof of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and that the plaintiff's conduct did not entitle him to discretionary relief; the first appellate court agreed.[1000077710004]

• In the plaintiff's second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings, holding the readiness and willingness issue did not arise as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest, and found Defendant No. 3 not a bona fide purchaser for value due to lack of his examination as a witness.[1000077710005]