1. Present appeal is directed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed on 23.02.2007 in O.S.No.765/1999 which was pending on the file of the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. Suit filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract has been decreed against the appellant by a considered judgment dated 23.02.2007. It is this judgment which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

3. Appellant is the defendant in the said suit and respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking given in the Trial Court. Appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and her legal representatives have been brought on record.

4. Facts leading to the file of the suit are as follows:

Defendant was the absolute owner in possession of 2.28 acres of land in Sy.No.89/3B2 of Kukkanahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had agreed to sell the entire suit schedule property in his favour for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- on 10.07.1997 and had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as advance agreeing to receive the balance of consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-within eleven months from 10.07.1997. Defendant is stated to have acknowledged a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-in the presence of the witnesses -who have attested unto the registered agreement of sale. On the very same day, the defendant is staled to have handed over her title deed i.e., registered sale deed executed in her favour on 22.06.1994 by Sri Veerappa.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had met the defendant several times personally with a request to execute a regular sale deed by receiving the balance of consideration as per the terms of the agreement of sale dated 10.07.1997. She is stated to have postponed the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other and as a result of the same, he had to get a legal notice issued on 07.08.1999 calling upon her to execute a regular sale deed and even a draft sale deed had been sent along with the notice.

6. On receipt of the notice, the defendant neither replied nor complied with the demand and therefore, he was left with no avenue except to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. It is his case that he is still ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract.

7. Defendant has filed a detailed written statement denying all the material averments. She has called upon the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint strictly. She has denied the execution of the agreement of sale and the receipt of consideration and the agreement to execute a regular sale deed by receiving the balance of consideration. It is her specific case that she had never intended to sell the suit schedule property to anybody muchless the plaintiff and that she had already developed the area into a farm house by investing huge amount and that there is a two storeyed R.C.C building in the schedule property. She is stated to have got a borewell dug in the suit land and planted large number of fruit bearing trees.

8. It is her specific case that in the year 1997, her husband had suffered heavy loss in the business and hence he was in financial difficulty. Plaintiff was a close family friend of the defendant and therefore, she had requested him to tide over the difficult phase. Taking into consideration the relationship, he agreed to help her financially. Hence, a document was prepared as a security for the lean as she had agreed to repay the same with interest. She is stated to have repaid a portion of the loan to him.

9. The plaintiff is stated to have taken undue advantage of her situation and created a document as though it was an agreement of sale by suppressing the existence of two storied R.C.C. building, existence of a borewell, fence and fruit bearing trees being planted.

The very aspect of readiness