( 1 ) THE appellant, who was plaintiff in O. S. No. 12 of 1987 on the file of court of Munsiff at Holenarasipura, has come up before this Court in second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree passed in that suit and also in R. A. No. 112 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Holenarasipura, by which the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be affirmed.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, parties will be referred here after as plaintiff and defendant i. e. , as shown in the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts, which give rise to the present appeal, are: (A) The plaintiff, being the owner in possession of suit land in Sy. No. 167 measuring 1 acre situated at Thattiekere Village, entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants on 28-5-1980 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as part consideration amount and handed over its possession to them with an agreement that after balance payment of Rs. 3,000/-, sale deed shall take place. However, unfortunately, that date has not yet come so far. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were at fault and committed breach of terms of the agreement of sale in spite of her repeated requests to pay balance consideration amount and get registration of sale deed. (B) However, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has already received Rs. 3,000/- through her husband, but went on postponing the execution of sale deed and brought suit for possession and even otherwise, they have shown readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and get registered sale deed. So, the plaintiff claimed possession of suit land from the defendants in the circumstances that they had not complied with the terms of agreement and in fact, committed breach of the same and consequently, she is entitled to get back possession. Accordingly, she brought suit for possession only reserving her right to claim damages separately. (C) With said pleadings, the parties went on trial. For the plaintiff, her husband and a witness were examined and two documents were marked. For the defendants, they examined themselves and a witness and got marked 12 documents. Considering that evidence, the Trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, after answering following issues 1 and 2 in negative and issues 3 and 4 as per order: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants have committed breach of agreement? 2. Whether as counter-claim, the defendants are entitled to specific performance? 3. To which relief, plaintiff is entitle? 4. What decree or order? (D) Aggrieved by it, the plaintiff filed R. A. No. 112 of 1996 before the appellate Court, which also confirmed the said dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court by dismissing the appeal. (E) Incidentally, it may be noted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was earlier decreed in the year 1989 when the defendants did not file any written statement and contest it. However, when that was challenged in R. A. No. 9 of 1989, allowing the appeal, the matter was remitted to the Trial Court on 24-7-1995, giving opportunity to the defendants to file written statement. Thus, after the matter was remitted to the trial Court, the defendants filed written statement on 17-11-1995 and it was thereafter, trial took place and ultimately the plaintiff became unsuccessful successively and as such, he is before this Court.

( 4 ) AT the stage of admission of the appeal on 26-3-1999, following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:1. WHETHER the lower Appellate Courts have erred in not decreeing the suit for possessi on only on the sole ground that the plaintiff/appellant has not produced documents of title relating to the schedule property despite the fact that the ownership of the plaintiff was admitted by the respondents?2. Whether the lower Courts have erred in not decreeing the suit for possession even though the respondents who