The appellants 1 and 7 herein, being the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 435 of 1986 on the file of the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court for short) have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 29-3-2001 passed in the said suit decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 8-10-1985 in respect of the suit property bearing No. 5/5 situate at 30th Cross, H.C. Byrasandra, Tank Bund Road, Tilaknagar, Bangalore, having two shops and a residential house.

2. Stated in brief, the case of the plaintiff (hereinafter parties are referred to as per their rank in the original suit before the `Trial Court). as averred in her plaint is as under:

(i) On 9-11-1984, the 2nd defendant let out the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 310/-. At that time, the plaintiff paid to the 2nd defendant, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards security deposit. In the first week of October 1985 both the defendants approached the plaintiff with their proposal of selling the suit property. At that time the 1st defendant informed her that he was the owner of the suit property and he got the same from CITB on 13-10-1973 under the allotment Order

No. PR-26/73-74 and thereafter he constructed the building thereon with his own funds. The plaintiff showed her willingness to purchase the said property on that date i.e., on 5-10-1985.

(ii) On 8-10-1985 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant whereunder the 1st defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- and received from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as advance of the said sale consideration amount. It was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay to the 1st defendant the balance consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed which was to be executed within three months from 8-10-1985 and all the registration charges were to be borne by the plaintiff. Thereafter on 25-8-1985 the defendant 1 again received from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as additional advance and he made an endorsement to that effect on the said sale agreement.

(iii) On 2/3-11-1985 the plaintiff informed the defendants that she was ready to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-and asked the 1st defendant to execute the sale deed in her favour. But the 2nd defendant, who is the wife of the 1st defendant, at the instigation of her relatives, got issued the legal notice dated 7-11-1985, Ex. P. 2, to the plaintiff alleging that by taking undue advantage of her old age and illiteracy the plaintiff had secured her LTM on a stamp paper under the pretext of securing a loan of Rs. 50,000/-. Again on 23-11-1985 through the same Counsel, the defendant 2 got issued a rejoinder alleging that the defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of the schedule property.

(iv) On 7-1-1986 the plaintiff got issued a telegram to the defendants requesting them to execute sale deed in her favour on 8-1-1986 by accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-. In response to the said telegram, the Counsel for the defendants issued a telegram calling upon the plaintiff to forward the Xerox copy of the agreement. On 8-1-1986, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub-Registrar at Jayanagar, Bangalore City, along with the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- and waited from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. at the said office, for the defendants, but they did not turn up for executing the sale deed.

(v) On 10-1-1986 once again the defendants got issued another notice to the plaintiff calling upon her to forward copy of sale agreement. However, the plaintiff did not send any reply to the said notice. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the suit which are to be performed by