A.S. Bopanna , J.—The appellants herein are the defendants 1 to 7 in O.S. No. 3106 of 2003. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10-3-1990 and the continuation agreement dated 24-9-1990 and for the consequential relief. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has decreed the suit by its judgment dated 2-11-2010. The defendants 1 to 7 claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment and decree are before this Court in this appeal. The case of the rival parties in a nutshell is that the suit schedule property bearing No. L-101 in H.S.R. Layout, Bangalore, was allotted in favour of late M. Ananda Rao, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 7 under a letter of allotment dated 30-1-1989. Thereafter a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 3-7-1990 was executed. The possession of the site was handed over to late M. Ananda Rao under the certificate dated 27-7-1990. The plaintiff contends that since the said allottee did not have sufficient funds to pay the allotment price had requested the plaintiff for payment of the amount. Thereafter, he has executed a sale deed dated 10-3-1990 agreeing to sell the site property for the consideration of Rs.3,05,000/-. In that regard, the plaintiff had paid the sum of Rs.15,000/- on 15-2-1990 and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- on 6-3-1990 and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 6-3-1990 which in all amounted to Rs.1,65,000/-. The further sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was to be paid after delivery of possession certificate and lease-cum-sale agreement by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, the 'BDA'). Since the site was under lease period, the said late Ananda Rao agreed to execute the sale deed after obtaining permission and therefore, the continuation agreement dated 24-9-1990 was executed in continuation of the earlier agreement and the balance sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was also paid as per the details indicated in the plaint. Hence, the entire sale consideration had been paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also put in possession of the site and the original allotment papers were handed over to the plaintiff. A registered General Power of Attorney was also executed on 24-9-1990. However, the lease period of ten years with BDA was to expire before the sale deed was to be executed. During the said period, M. Ananda Rao expired, which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in the year 2003 when it was confirmed, to the plaintiff by the first defendant. Since the defendants 1 to 7 failed to honour the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and late Ananda Rao and since they were attempting to obtain sale deed in their favour, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and thereafter instituted the suit.

2. The defendants 1 to 7 on entering appearance have filed their written statement. They have raised several contentions to deny the case of the plaintiff. Apart form contending that the Court fee paid is insufficient; suit being bad for mis-joinder of parties and that the suit is barred by limitation since agreement relied on are dated 10-3-1990 and 24-9-1990 and M. Ananda Rao died on 21-8-1994, have also denied the right of the plaintiff to seek for a decree for specific performance. They have denied that late M. Ananda Rao had agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.3,05,000/-. The BDA had only executed the lease-cum-sale agreement and therefore, until completion of the ten years, there was no right to sell the property and as such, the agreement is not sustainable in law as being contrary to the provisions of law. The execution of an irrevocable Power of Attorney is also denied. The defendants contended that the plaintiff by putting forth a false case is attempting to knock off the valuable property of the defendants and the fact that the suit is filed after nine years from the date of death of Ananda Rao would indicate that the plaintiff is taking advantage of the situation. It is