( 1 ) THE appeal is admitted.

( 2 ) THE instant appeal is filed against the order on la. no. Iv dated 10-2-1996 in o. s. No. 1949 of 1994 Passed by the v Additional City Civil Judge (c. c. h. No. 13) Bangalore, whereby the said judge was pleased to allow the said la. And further pleased to reject the plaint under order 7, Rule ll (d) of Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) THE matter was originally listed for admission. However, in view of the fact that parties are represented, by consent of parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

( 4 ) I heard the learned counsel Sri b. Vishwanath bhandarkar appearing for the appellant, Sri krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and the learned counsel Sri c. s. prasanna kumar for kumar and kumar, appearing for the respondent 2. I have also perused the records, having called for from the Court of v Additional City Civil Judge (c. c. h. No. 13), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'city civil judge' ).

( 5 ) THE facts in brief of the case are as follows: that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit in question before the city civil judge to enforce the agreement for specific performance of contract dated 10-7-1978 as against the respondent 1 with a prayer to direct the said respondent 1 to execute a valid deed of sale in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint that respondent 1 had executed an agreement of sale dated 10-7-1978 for a sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the day of agreement and subsequently she had also received further sum of Rs. 13,000/- on 4-7-1979 also towards the sale consideration and that the appellant was put into possession of the suit schedule property, whereupon, the respondent 1 had postponed the execution of the deed of sale with one pretext or other, though the documents of title were also made over by respondent 1 to the appellant in the meantime. Furthermore, the respondent 1 had also permitted the appellant to put up the construction in the suit schedule property and accordingly, she had also constructed a house thereon after obtaining an approved plan by the b. d. a. with the co-operation of respondent 1; let apart, the appellant had also thereafter paid necessary taxes to the authorities in respect of the subject property. It is further averred in the plaint that to the surprise of the appellant, the respondent 1 issued a legal notice on 18-5-1985 informing that the appellant failed to perform her part of the obligation under the suit agreement; that time agreed for the completion of the transaction under the suit agreement was for six months and that time was the essence of the contract between the parties, that the said agreement was barred by limitation and had become invalid and that respondent 1 was therefore not bound by the said agreement.

( 6 ) THE appellant had filed yet another suit in o. s. No. 2373 of 1991 on the file of the city civil judge, as against the respondent 1 for a relief of permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. That in the said suit, the respondent 2 having been made a party had filed the written statement and further filed objection statement as against an la. Filed under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code and contested the suit on the ground that the first respondent had sold the subject property in favour of respondent 2 under a registered deed of sale dated 25-2-1987. That fact came to the knowledge of the appellant herein for the first time on 18-2-1991 and according to her, the said date is the date of refusal on the part of respondent 1 to execute the valid deed of sale in her favour. It is further stated in the plaint that the respondent 2 had filed a suit as against the appellant in o. s. No. 3384 of 1993 on the file of the city civil judge (c. c. h. No. 11), Bangalore to declare that the respondent 2 is the absolute owner of the subject property and also for the