This is an unsuccessful plaintiffs’ regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 made in R.A. No.267/2011 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011 made in O.S. No.78/2007 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. This is a very interesting case filed by the plaintiffs to enforce the agreement dated 17.04.1963 and suit filed on 01.06.2007, after lapse of more than four decades to enforce the agreement and suit came to be dismissed.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the property bearing block No.87 measuring 2 acres 12 guntas, situated at Aladakatti Village, Saundatti Taluk was belonged to Mallappa, Sannafakkirappa and Adiveppa Mallappa Pavadeppanavar. Out of the said property, the said Mallappa and Balappa Sannafakkirappa executed an agreement of sale in favour of the father of the plaintiffs by name Padeppa Shivarayappa Pavadeppanavar for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,320/. Out of the said consideration, the father of the plaintiffs paid earnest money of Rs.1,000/- to the owners of the property. The said agreement of sale was registered before the Sub-Registrar. It was agreed between the parties in the said document that since consolidation scheme was applying to the Village, after obtaining permission to sell the property from the concerned authority, the owners would execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. On the date of agreement itself the possession of 2/3rd share was handed over to the father of the plaintiffs and it is further case of the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property, on the basis of the agreement of sale till his death and during his lifetime he was requesting the owners of the property to obtain the permission early and execute the registered sale deed in his favour. However, the owners of the property postponed the execution of the sale deed till the death of the father of the plaintiffs. After the death of the original owners, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 being the legal heirs of Mallappa were asked by the plaintiffs to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also the LRs. of Adiveppa Mallappa Pavadeppanavar and Balappa Sannafakkirappa postponed the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and in the month of February 2007 when the plaintiffs requested the legal heirs of the original owners, they started giving false reply and therefore, the plaintiffs came to know that behind the back of the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 for sale consideration of Rs.1,11,000/ under the registered sale deed dated 08.03.2007. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no absolute right to alienate the property in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4, since the LRs. of Balappa and Adiveppa are also the owners of the said property along with defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the sale deed is not in accordance with law and it is null and void and not at all binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.5 to 8 have got 1/3rd share in the suit property. Therefore, they are only formal parties etc. Therefore, they filed the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.3 and 6 filed the written statement. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 adopted the written statement made by the 6th defendant. 5th defendant died and his LRs. are brought on record as defendant Nos.5A to 5C and they have not filed any written statement. The plaintiffs got impleaded defendant Nos.9 to 22 and they have not filed any written statement nor c