1. Unsuccessful plaintiff is in appeal against judgment in R.A.No.128/2004 reversing the finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.428/96 and dismissing the suit declining to grant decree for specific performance.

2. The appeal has been admitted to consider the following questions of law:

"1) Whether the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is sustainable as respondent no.4, who was an appellant no.4 in the appeal died during pendency of the appeal and her LRs were not brought on record?

2) Whether the Appellate Court was right in holding mere acceptance of having signed the Ex.P.1 in blank is not enough proof to decree the suit for specific performance?

3) Whether the Appellate Court was right in placing burden of proof of Ex.P1 on the plaintiff when the defendant has admitted the signature appearing therein?

3. After admission of the appeal, learned counsel on both sides plead for expeditious disposal and hence the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

4. I have heard both sides substantially and perused the records, from which following facts manifest:

a) Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.428/1996 seeking a decree to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to execute an agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the property described in the schedule on the assertive contention that the suit property was originally owned by one Kempaiah, father of the defendants 1 to 3 and the husband of defendant no.4. He died leaving behind them to succeed to his estate.

b) Under the family arrangement the suit property was assigned and allocate a to the 1st defendant - Subba and thus he became absolute owner thereof from the year 1995, Having acquired right, title and interest in the property in the manner aforesaid, he agreed to sell unto him for consideration of Rs.4,000/- and the transaction culminated in a binding sale agreement on 5.7.1985. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- in acknowledgement of which Subba-1st defendant executed the sale agreement and also got it attested by his brothers - defendant 2 and 3 as consenting witnesses.

c) The plaintiff further averred, the 1st defendant delivered physical possession of the property and has improved the property at heavy cost.

d) Alleging that the defendants, without unjustifiable cause or reason, refused to fulfill the obligation under the agreement, he sought a decree.

e) The defendants 1 to 4 entered contest and denied vehemently all averments in the plaint. They traversed the statement in each of the paragraphs making it clear that at no point of time they had undertaken or agreed to sell the property unto the plaintiff nor there was any transaction of sale. They denied they had agreed to sell the property bearing Sy.No.94 and Sy, No.34/1, in consideration of Rs. 4000/- as alleged.

f) Later, they filed additional written statement wherein, they narrated certain additional facts to show that in the year 1985 they wanted to perform the marriage of their sister and being in need of money approached the plaintiff. The plaintiff insisted them to sign on certain papers in blank. Having no choice, they signed certain blank papers to secure the loan. Which, they alleged, the plaintiff has misused their signatures on blank papers and converted it into agreement of sale. This is, therefore, not binding on them. Each of the defendants took similar consistent plea, consequent to which, the learned Trial judge framed following issues for consideration based on the material propositions:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant executed an agreement of sale deed on 05/07/1985?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves thatRs.4,000/- acknowledged by the defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is in actual possession of the plaintiff?

4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is willing to perform his part of contract?

5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to claim the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants?

6) Whether th