1. R.F.A.No.3014/2009 and R.F.A.Cr.Ob.No.101/2010 are by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively in O.S.No.63/2005. R.S.A.No.5148/2009 is by the defendant in O.S.No.178/2010.

2. R.F.As. and Cross-Objections are dealt together, R.S.A. is dealt separately.

3. I.A.I is filed by defendant No.1 under Section 151 of CPC for deletion of names of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the R.F.A., as defendant No.1 is the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Opposing the deletion of the names of the respondent Nos.2 to 5, the appellant in R.F.A. has filed I.A.2/2012. Hence, both these I.A.s. will be considered later.

4. Brief facts leading to these cases are as under:

The suit is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 6.1.1995. Plaintiff has sought for a direction, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and get the same registered, in case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, then by appointing Commissioner, in the alternative for direction to refund the advance consideration amount to the plaintiff with damage of Rs.13,50,000/- with future interest @ 18% per annum, further, for declaration that, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.133/1999 dated 1.3.2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belgaum, is not binding on the plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff was in occupation of the suit schedule property as monthly tenant, he is carrying on business in stationery and cosmetic and other items since 1959, on monthly rent of Rs.600/-. On 23rd May 1989, the original owner of the suit schedule property Ananth R.Malithali died leaving behind two sons i.e., defendant No.1 and late Balaram and three daughters defendants-3 to 5. The names of the legal representatives of the deceased Ananth were entered in the survey record. The second son Balaram also died leaving behind Smt.Rohini as his legal representative, who is defendant No.2. All the defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff by executing the written agreement dated 6.1.1995 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- plaintiff had Rs.4,00,000/- by way of advance amount and it was acknowledged by the defendant Nos.2, 3 and one Sudhindra, i.e., son of defendant No.1. Defendants were under obligation to compile all the formalities including obtaining clearance certificate from Income Tax Department as required under Section 230(A) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’ for short). It was also agreed that the sale transaction to be completed on or before 30th June 1995, however, the defendants did not perform their part of contract in terms of the agreement. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sudhindra, demanded additional advance amount in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement and started harassing the plaintiff. Plaintiff had no option except to pay the said amount and accordingly, defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sudhindra collected the said amount and acknowledged the receipt. Plaintiff has paid huge advance of consideration hoping that the defendants will perform their part of contract and execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract right from the date of agreement. He was repeatedly requesting the defendants to obtain income tax clearance certificate. Plaintiff, who was on very cordial terms with the defendants, did not insist to give in writing as to the promise made by the defendants to secure the income tax clearance certificate. Every time the plaintiff used to ask the defendants regarding compliance, the defendants for one or the other reason were postponing the same. Plaintiff believed the explanation given by the defendants that they will secure the income tax clearance certificate after they settle their internal disputes.

6. However, the defendants in order to harass and deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate right and to deny the execution of the sale deed, got a suit filed in O