The failure to prove the execution of the agreement dated 18-6-1975 was fatal to the plaintiff's claim for specific performance, and the plaintiff's possession of the property was not established.

( 1 ) THIS is the plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1986 passed in Regular Appeal No. 29 of 1983, Gavigowda v kalegowda and Others passed by the Civil Judge, holenarasipura dismissing the plaintiffs appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 20-10-1981 passed in O. S. No. 70 of 1978, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale-deed as well as for injunction.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are, that the property in suit did originally belong to Bettegowda and Byregowda. According to the plaintiffs case, as Bettegowda and Byregowda were not keeping in good health, they entrusted the plaintiff with the suit schedule property to cultivate the same on wara basis. The plaintiff further alleged that Byregowda sold his share to defendant 1, but possession of the suit property, after the death of Bettegowda and Byregowda continued with the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff further alleged that, after the death of Bettegowda and Byregowda the first and second defendants agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff- appellant for sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- and an agreement to that effect was executed on the same day i. e. , on 18-6-1975. The plaintiffs case is that towards sale consideration, a sum of rs. 5,500 had been paid on that day and the balance of Rs. 500/- was agreed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the document. According to the plaintiff- appellant, he continues to be in possession of the property even after the agreement in question. The plaintiffs case is that, the reconveyance of the property was delayed for the reason that defendants 1 and 2 have to take reconveyance of certain items of the property which had been transferred and conveyed to the defendant 3, according to the plaintiff by nominal sale deed by way of security for the amounts advanced to defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs case is that, by issuing notices to the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff-appellant called upon them to receive tbe balance amount of Rs. 500/- and to execute the sale deed in compliance of the terms of agreement dated 18-6-1975. The plaintiff further alleged that, defendants failed to comply with the said notice, as such the suit has been filed for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 18-6-1975 as well as for injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering with their possession. In the plaint, in addition to defendants 1 and 2, defendants 3 and 4 have also been impleaded. The defendants filed the written statement separately and denied the plaint allegations altogether. In the written statement defendants 1 and 2, specifically, contended and stated that they did not execute the agreement dated 18-6-1975 and the allegation made in the plaint to the effect that defendants have executed the agreement dated 18-6-1975 is incorrect. The defendants further alleged, to the effect, that the sale deed which had been executed in favour of defendant 3 was nominal one and it was executed as the security for the amount advanced has been totally false and incorrect. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was in possession or cultivation of the land in any manner. They denied that plaintiff was a wara tenant. The defendants 1 and 2 stated that they have sold the Survey Nos. 1/3, 47/4, 49/1 and 61/2 and other properties to the fourth defendant by deed dated 12-9-1975 and have given possession of the same to the fourth defendant. The plea of limitation was also raised to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation. Defendants 3 and 4 denied the plaint allegations. According to defendant 3, Byregowda sold his share to defendant 1, they denied the plaintiffs possession as well. Defendant 3 further averred that, by re