This is the plaintiff’s writ petition against the order dated 15.9.2017 made in O.S.No.5395/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore rejecting the notice to admit documents filed by the plaintiff.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.5395/2011 for specific performance directing the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,52,50,000/- and to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and to deliver possession thereof, failing which, the Court may permit the plaintiff to deposit the entire amount upon the decree before the Court contending that defendant No.1, who is the owner of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint intending to offer to sell the schedule property to him and accordingly, the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 2.9.2008, and the same was registered in the Office of the Sub-registrar, Indiranagar, Bangalore for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid on the date of agreement as advance under the cheque and balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Clause 2 of the agreement contemplated that the transaction had to be completed within a period of three months, however, subject to the condition that the plaintiff would secure and produce documents referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (s) of the agreement.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that though the documents had not been secured on 9.9.2008, the defendants again approached the plaintiff seeking further advance on the ground that the same was required to meet their exigencies. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the entire balance sale consideration, subject to compliance of clause 2 of the sale agreement, at the request of the defendants, further sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by means of cheque and a separate receipt had also been executed by the defendants in this regard. It was further contended that, it was represented by the defendant that he intended to execute the General Power of Attorney in the name of his friend Ramarao after obtaining ‘No Objection’ from the daughter and that the sale consideration could be concluded through the power of attorney holder by paying balance sale consideration, etc., and inspite of notice, the defendant had not executed the sale agreement, etc. Therefore, he had filed the suit for the relief sought for.

4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied the entire plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the entire suit is the outcome of fraud played by the plaintiff on them. Only with an intention of harassing them, the plaintiff has filed the suit. He further contended that the manner in which the plaintiff has played fraud with the assistance of the people that, the plaintiff was dependent upon can be clearly ascertained in the facts as stated in the plaint. The suit agreement upon which the plaintiff seeks reliance upon for the purpose of institution of the suit is secured by fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and taking undue advantage of the trust and confidence reposed by the defendants on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in collusion and assistance of persons, who were close to them had exercised undue influence and by playing fraud on the defendant has secured the suit agreement. The suit agreement does not constitute a legally valid and binding agreement and the defendant cannot be compelled to honour the same. Since the said agreement is vitiated by playing fraud, the same is null and void.

5. He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance is barred by limitation. He also contended that he learnt the illegal acts of the plaintiff was in collusion with Mr. Ramesh Rao and therefore, immediately in the year 2010 he informed the said Ramesh Rao and his family,