This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful before the Court below.

2. Plaintiff - Sri P. Satish Pai instituted a suit O.S.No.754/1997 which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.49/2006, seeking specific performance of the contract by directing defendants-1 and 2 to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property namely, agricultural land bearing Sy.No.5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in terms of agreement of sale dated 11.10.1994.

3. It was the case of plaintiff that defendants-1 and 2 were absolute owners of suit schedule property; they agreed to sell the said property and in that connection, executed an agreement on 11.10.1994 – Ex.P-1; on the date of agreement, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs viz., Rs. 1 lakh by way of cash and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of two cheques. Plaintiff further asserted that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of loan for which defendants had acknowledged the same by issuing a separate receipt. It was also urged that defendants had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 03.01.1995; thus, total sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- had been paid by way of advance sale consideration.

4. Total sale consideration agreed as asserted in the plaint was Rs. 9 lakhs. Plaintiff contended that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying balance consideration amount to get sale deed registered in his name, defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed nor did they respond to the request made by plaintiff to obtain necessary income tax clearance and furnish original documents such as mutation register extract, index of land records, etc, pertaining to the land in question. Legal notice issued by plaintiff on 12.09.1995 calling upon the defendants to execute sale deed though served was not replied. Therefore suit was instituted by plaintiff.

5. Though defendants-1 and 2 were served, they did not appear before the Court below. Therefore they were placed exparte. Court below has proceeded to record the evidence of plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1. One witness by name Sri C R Suresh has been examined as P.W.2. Documents - Exs.P-1 to P-7 were produced and marked in evidence. Court below had framed the following issues for its determination.

(1) “Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.9 Lakhs under written statement dt.11-10-1994 and that they have received Rs.2,75,000/- as part consideration in furtherance of the same?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd persons to make unlawful gains?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?

(5) Whether the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled for the return of part consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest?

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property?

(7) What order or decree?”

6. After examining the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, Court below has come to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to establish due execution of agreement and readiness and willingness on his part to perform his part of the contract. As regards entitlement of the plaintiff for alternative relief of return of part of sale consideration with interest, Court below has held that plaintiff had failed to establish that defendants-1 and 2 were the absolute owners of the property. In this regard, Court below has found that plaintiff had failed to produce RTC extracts pertaining to the suit schedule land for the relevant year.

7. Sri Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.L. Vishwanath for appellant contends that as defendants remained exparte