RFA filed u/s 41 R.1 R/w. Sec.96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated: 12.6.2003 passed in O.S.No.351/1996 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore, decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement and for costs etc., The appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore on 21.6.2003 in O.S.No.351/1996.

2. The appellants were defendants in the suit. Respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to enforce the agreements of sale dt. 3.1.1991 and 29.9.1995 to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property or in the alternative if specific performance cannot be granted, direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. The Trial Court has decreed the suit directing the defendants to execute the sale deeds within three months failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed registered and execute through the court. This Judgment and decree is called in question in this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Yoganarasimha for the Respondent.

4. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:

The defendants are brothers and are the children of one K.L.Lakshmipathy. They are the owners of a vacant land situated in the heart of Mysore City in Bannimantap, where Daserra procession leads from Mysore Palace to Bannimantap. The property bearing site No.7/D situated at Bannimantap ‘A’ layout, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore, bounded on east by road, west by road, north by road, south by site No.9 measuring east to west 235’+200’/2 and north to south 150 ft.

According to the plaint averments, the defendants agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. On the ground that 1st defendant K.L. Sathyaprakash was in abroad they decided to sell the schedule property for their dire needs. The plaintiff is a company dealing with the finance agreed to purchase the same for its business and intended to diversify its business activities. Accordingly on behalf of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant as a power of attorney holder entered into an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property on 3.1.1991 agreeing to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 50,001/-was paid to the defendants by means of pay order drawn on Corporation Bank. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- shall be payable by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. Since the plaint schedule property was a vacant land situated within the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, there was ban on sale of an urban property and it could be sold only after obtaining permission from the competent authority as per the provisions of Karnataka Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The defendants agreed to obtain permission, accordingly 3 months time was stipulated to obtain the permission and to sell the same. The sale was subject to obtaining the permission under the provisions of Karnataka Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation Act) 76. It is the further case of the plaintiff though an application was filed for grant of permission, the Govt. refused to grant permission to the defendants to alienate the property.

In the circumstances another agreement dt.29.9.1995 was entered into between the parties extending the period to complete the transaction by one more year from 29.9.1995 and it was agreed that the defendants should cooperate with the plaintiff to construct a building of minimum 6 squares and they agreed to sell the property along with the building to be constructed by the plaintiff within a period of one year. Based on the same, the plaintiff obtained licence and plan from the Corporation to construct a building and also engaged the Building Contractor on 19.9.199