D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J : This appeal u/s 96 of CPC is against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 24/93 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hospet. Though the matter has come up for orders regarding non-compliance of office objections, we have taken up the appeal for disposal having regard to the limited issues involved in the appeal.

2. We have heard Smt. Veena Hegde, learned Counsel for appellant, Sri Anant Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5(a), 5(b), 6(a), 6(b), 7, 8, 9 and 10(a) and gone through the findings of the lower Court with records, documentary and oral evidence and law on the point and we are fully satisfied that this is an appeal which deserves dismissal on the following facts and the foregoing reasons.

3. The suit was for specific performance on the premise that some of the defendants, particularly defendant No.1 and 2 had executed an agreement dated. 17.11.1992 to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- and for which purpose under the suit agreement a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had already been received, which amount of course was entitled to be forfeited by the owners of the suit schedule property in the case the plaintiff fails to perform her part of the agreement, by not paying the balance sale consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/-.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had denied the execution of the suit agreement as per Ex.P.5 and had contended that it is a forged document. Defendant No.1 had contended that they had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/from the plaintiff and in that connection the plaintiff on the pretext of non availability of a proforma demand promissory note had obtained signatures of defendants 1 and 2 on revenue stamps affixed on a white paper which has been subsequently forged by plaintiff and her husband to make it appear as an agreement for sale. Defendants 3 and 4 had questioned the rights of defendants 1 and 2 to enter into the alleged agreement in respect of individual interest of defendants 3 and 4 in the suit schedule property.

5. The Trial Court framed several issues which are not relevant for disposal of this appeal except issues Nos. 1 and 4 which are as under:

Issue No. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants 1 and 2 on their behalf and also on behalf of defendant Nos. 3, and 4 agreed to sell suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ - taking an advance of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff by cheque dated 17.11.1992 and executed an agreement-cum-receipt on 17.11.92 confirming the agreement of sale as alleged in the plaint?

Issue No.4. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were under the care and custody of defendants 1 and 2 and they agreed to sell the property and joined in the execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in plaint?

The parties went to trial on the issues that had been framed by the Trial Court. So far as this appeal is concerned, the significant documentary evidence is Ex.P.5 said to be an agreement executed by defendants 1 and 2 to sell the suit schedule property not only on their behalf but also on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 who are the children of deceased younger brother of second defendant, in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration as indicated above.

6. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record has found that Ex.P.5 is not a genuine document and it is not an enforceable agreement against defendants 1 to 4. Accordingly answered issue No.1 against the plaintiff. So also answered issue No.4 against the plaintiff, holding that defendant No.3 and 4 were not minors on the date of the execution of the alleged suit agreement and they were not under the care and custody of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3, but on the other hand had attained majority as on the date of the so called agreement dated 17.11.1992 marked as Ex.P.5.

7. Obviously, in view of the aforestated findings the suit was dismisse