JUDGMENT :

Sri.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for appellants has appeared through video conferencing.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Kadur whereby, learned Judge has decreed the suit for the relief of specific performance.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

4. In brief the facts of the case are as under:-Plaintiff is the Registered Trust running under the name and style as "Sri.Anjaneyaswamy Trust (R), "Gundusagara, Sakharayapatna Hobli, Kadur Taluk and it is represented by its President and Secretary. The defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 03 acres 01 guntas situated at Gundusagara Village, Nagaralu Grama Panchayath, Sakharayapatna Hobli, Kadur Taluk. The Katha is also standing in the name of defendant No 1.

Plaintiff-Trust averred that defendants for meeting the expenses of the marriage of their daughter, agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-and accordingly, they executed an agreement for sale on 11.04.2000 and on the very same day, they have received the entire sale consideration and handed over the possession of the suit schedule property before the witnesses. It is averred that defendants also agreed to executed registered sale deed as and when plaintiff-Trust demands.

It was urged that Plaintiff–Trust was always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. But the defendants evaded to execute the registered sale deed on one or the other pretext. Hence, plaintiff-Trust approached defendants and requested them to execute the registered sale deed as per the terms of the agreement executed by them, but in vain.

Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice on 07.04.2003 calling upon defendants to perform their part of contract by executing registered sale deed. Contending that defendants did not perform their part of the contract and tried to alienate the suit schedule property in favor of third persons, plaintiff sought aid of the Court and sought appropriate reliefs.

After service of summons, defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. They denied the plaint averments.

Defendants in their written statement denied the execution of agreement for sale dated 11.4.2000 and receival of consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/-and handing over of possession. They contended that they are illiterate, plaintiff -Trust has mis-utilized their innocence and has obtained signature and thumb impression and has created the agreement for sale. It was further contended that at no point of time, they intended / or agreed to sell the property. It was urged that they were constrained to institute action against plaintiff -Trust in O.S.No.38/2003. Accordingly, they sought for the dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

OTHER LANGUAGE

In order to substantiate the claim, one T.Rajanna was examined as PW-1 and four more witnesses were examined as PW-2 to 5 and produced fourteen documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. When the case was posted for defendant’s evidence, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and produced seven documents which were marked as Exs.D1 to D7.

On trial of the action, the suit came to be decreed directing defendants 1 to 3 to execute the registered sale deed in favor of plaintiff-Trust on or before 01.12.2005. Hence, defendants are before this Court.

5. Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence available on record.

Next, he submitted that the trial Court erroneously appreciated the evidence available on record and has passed the decree without framing proper issues for consideration.

A further submission was made that the agreement for sale which is at Ex P-1 is in violation of the provisions of the Karnat