1. This appeal is by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in OS No.11192/2006.

2. A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff for purchasing the property, a commercial apartment/flat bearing No.S-112 (47/136) situated in the First Floor, South Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendant are friends both in business transactions as well as in real life. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- out of which, the plaintiff had paid Rs.8,50,000/- at the time of agreement which was entered between the parties on 28.10.2004. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration subject to defendant furnishing necessary documents, for which the defendant also had agreed and to hand over the original title deeds and other tax paid receipts etc. During March 2005, the plaintiff had informed the defendant orally to come and execute the sale deed and also expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the remaining balance of Rs.75,000/- and sought for execution of the sale deed. Though it was assured by the defendant, he did not come forward. Even on request made by the plaintiff in the month of April 2005 to execute the sale deed by accepting the remaining sum of Rs.75,000/-, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued legal notice in the month of June 2006 inspite of waiting for some time as the defendant was also a family friend of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the suit came to be filed.

3. According to the defendant’s written statement, while denying the said transaction, it is stated that the contract had lapsed by time and there was no cause of action. While admitting the friendship between them, it is also stated that the defendant was badly in need of funds for his business and wanting to dispose of the suit schedule property. However, he has denied the fact that the plaintiff has advanced the sale consideration, but admitted the agreement entered into on 28.10.2004. Further, it is also stated that the sale transactions was not for a sum Rs.9,25,000/- and it was Rs.9,75,000/-and that the defendant had all the relevant documents with him which was required to be registered. However, he has denied the stand of the plaintiff approaching to execute the sale deed by collecting the remaining amount of Rs.75,000/-either in March or April 2005. Rather, it is contended that, inspite of repeated request, the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the sale consideration and get the sale deed executed. After lapse of time, only during 2006, the plaintiff gave paper publication and filed suit. The defendant has not taken any financial assistance from the plaintiff. The payment of Rs.6,00,000/-from the plaintiff is entirely a different transaction and has nothing to do with the subject matter of the suit and urges various grounds, denying the contents of the suit filed by the plaintiff, he has sought for dismissal of the suit with cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as four issues for consideration. After recording the evidence and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court has ordered for specific performance directing the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- within one month from the date of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court in appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel representing the plaintiff/respondent.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff has committed the breach of contract. As per the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 147 between Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v. Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited and another,