N. Kumar, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, which has declined to grant the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit is landed property bearing Sy. No. 22/3 measuring 7-08 guntas and Sy. No. 270/1 measuring 0-02.08 guntas. Both are situated at Maranagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, situated within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule and herein referred to as the schedule properties.

4. The first defendant is the owner of the schedule property. He has offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 53,75,000/-. An agreement of sale came to be executed on 21.07.2008 in favour of the plaintiff. Under the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid. The receipt of which, the first defendant has acknowledged in the agreement itself. It is agreed the defendant No. 1 shall execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of sale agreement, whenever the plaintiff called him to execute the registered sale deed. The defendant No. 1 shall execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of the amount of Rs. 52,75,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1 had agreed to get measured the suit properties from the competent authorities and to fix up the boundaries of the suit lands before execution of the registered sale deeds. Further, he agreed to furnish the relevant documents and also kept ready for delivery of all the title deeds as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The time fixed was three months from the date of the completion of the above said formalities, i.e., measurement and fixing up of the boundaries of the suit lands. In the meanwhile, he secured the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 52,75,000/- and called upon defendant No. 1 to execute the registered sale deed in his favour as he was ready with the amount of balance of the sale consideration. But defendant No. 1, for some reason or the other was postponing the execution of the sale deed. To the surprise of the plaintiff, he received a legal notice dated 03.11.2008 from the defendant No. 1 calling upon him to get registered the sale deed within Seven days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, failing which, the advance amount would be forfeited. The plaintiff issued a reply to the said legal notice on 10.11.2008 by reminding the defendant the measurement and fixing up of the boundary clause. The plaintiff also demanded defendant No. 1 to abide by the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. On 01.12.2008, defendant No. 1 sent a reply notice, by furnishing certain Photostat copies of the documents which were not relevant to the suit lands. The plaintiff got issued a reply dated 10.12.2008 by stating that the survey sketch along with the notice were of the years 1993 and 1998 and those documents are irrelevant pertaining to the sale agreement dated 21.07.2008 since the defendant No. 1 had clearly agreed to measure the suit lands and fix up the boundaries afresh in the presence of the plaintiff. In both the aforementioned legal notices, plaintiff demanded defendant No. 1 to comply with the terms of the sale agreement and further demanded him to execute the registered sale deed pertaining to suit lands. Despite the same, defendant No. 1 failed and neglected either to comply with the terms of the sale agreement or to execute the registered sale deed pertaining to the suit lands. Thereupon, the plaintiff issued a public notice through "Vijaya Karnataka", Kannada daily newspaper dated 30.04.2010 by informing the general public about the sale agreement dated 21.07.2008 executed by defendant No. 1 in his favour and by calling for objections, if any, from the third parties