( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgement and decree dated 31/10/1979 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O. S. No. 435 of 1973.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 6 were defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. In this judgement, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as defendants l to 6. We may also point out here itself that defendants 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and defendants 3 to 6 are their children.

( 3 ) THE trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 7-5-1990 executed by the defendants and also for payment of Rs. 10,000/- which according to the plaintiff was overpaid and current interest on the said sum and also for permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule property belonged to the first defendant; that he was the tenant in occupation of the suit schedule property; that defendants had incurred several debts for the purpose of development of their property viz. , for putting up the first and second floor on the property adjoining to the suit schedule property; that for the purpose of discharging the debts incurred under several mortgages and also for the purpose of getting over the agreement of sale dated 2-6-1969 executed by the defendants in favour of one Sri Lakshmi Narayana agreeing to sell the suit schedule property along with the adjoining property for a sum of Rupees one lakh, the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in order to save the remaining properties; that under the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the defendants, in that he paid a cash of Rs 5,000/- before the Sub-Registrar and a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, to Lakshmi Narayana which is to be paid Under the terms of the agreement dated 2-6-1969. The further case of the plaintiff was that as per the terms of the agreement dated 7-5-1970, the balance amount was to be paid to the defendants who were to get the liability of Lakshmi Narayana discharged; that in the event the defendants failed to have the liability of Lakshmi Narayana discharged it was the plaintiff who was to discharge that liability and have the sale deed executed, that in the event the balance of Rs. 90,000/- was found to be insufficient, to recover excess amount from the defendants. The further case of the plaintiff was that pursuant to that he paid a sum of Rupees one lakh to Lakshmi Narayana on 8-4-1971 and got assigned the mortgages under a deed of assignment dated 8-4-1971; that he also got assigned rights of Lakshmi Narayana under the agreement dated 2-6-1969, therefore, he further pleaded that in all he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the agreement in order to get the liabilities of Lakshmi Narayana discharged and to make the suit property free for conveyance for him. He further pleaded that in spite of the notice issued to the defendants on 16-11-1973, the defendants did not execute the sale deed even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to have the sale deed executed. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for the reliefs as stated above.

( 5 ) THE defendants resisted the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 together filed the written statement and were represented by separate counsels and defendants 3 to 6 together filed the separate written -statement and were represented by different counsel.

( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff obtained agreement of sale dated 7-51970 taking undue advantage of the weakness of the first defendant and exercised undue influence over the defendants and also on misrepresentation; that the transaction evidenced by the agreement dated 7-5-1970 was not intended to be acted upon; that the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, as recited in the agreement dated 7-5-1970 was not paid to the defendants; that the plaintiff persuaded the first defenda