( 1 ) DEFENDANT matti ranganatha prabhu, in o. s. No. 9/1981 on the file of the civil judge at mangalore. First respondent in the plaintiff.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF and the late matti ranganatha frabhu entered into an agreement on 2-09-1980 under which the deceased agreed to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,09,000/-; on the date of agreement Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, leaving a balance of Rs. 70,900/ -. It is averred by the plaintiff that on 29-09-1980, he was put in possession of item No. 2 of the 'a' schedule property in part performance of the contract. Plaintiff issued a notice on 1-10-1980 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. This was followed by yet another notice on 24-11-1980. Regarding his readiness to perform his part of the contract plaintiff stated thus in his plaint:"7. That the plaintiff approached the defendant several times and requested him to execute the sale deed and receive the balance price as agreed upon. 8. That the plaintiff has been and is throughout ready and willing to pay the balance price as stipulated in the agreement and to purchase the property. 9. That on 1-10-1980 the defendant promised to execute the sale deed but postponed the execution of the sale deed on false grounds. "

( 3 ) DEFENDANT admitted the execution of the agreement and the receipt of rs. 30,000/ -. He stated that he never intended to alienate the property. He was coerced to sign the document. He was willing to refund Rs. 30,000/- with interest. He contended that the property in question was a mulgeni land wherein his wife and children have interest by birth.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings court-below framed following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has agreed to sell the 'a' schedule property for Rs. 1,09,000/- on 2-9-1980 and received an advance of Rs. 30,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he was put in possession of a portion of that property on 29-9-1980 in part performance of the agreement? 3. Whether the defendant proves that he was coerced to sign certain papers without knowing the contents? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit specific performance is not maintainable in view of the Provisions of the prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings Act, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?

( 5 ) WHETHER the plaintiff proves that he was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

( 6 ) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of contract?

( 7 ) IN case, if the contract cannot be specifically enforced, whether the plaintiffis entitled for refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at 20% p. a?

( 8 ) WHETHER the defendant proves that he offered to pay Rs. 30,000/- several times but plaintiff refused to receive it, and hence not liable to pay interest?

( 9 ) WHETHER the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

( 10 ) WHAT order or decree?5. The court after recording evidence, decreed the suit. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr. Shevgoor learned counsel for appellant contended that the notice dated 1-10-1980 is a concocted document; the plea of part performance on the allegation that the plaintiff is put in possession of a portion of the property is factually incorrect; in the circumstances, in which the defendant was placed, there was no necessity or need to conceive of the idea of alienating the property; lastly greater hardship would be caused to the present appellants, hence discretion exercised by the court-below is unjust. He vehemently urged that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the fact that he had not furnished the draft of the sale deed enabling the defendant to obtain income tax clearance certificate to comply with Section 230-a of the income tax act shows that he was neither keen nor anxious to purchase the property. He pleaded for dismissal of suit. 7. The points that emerge for consideration are: (1) whether the plaintiff was ready and willing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document