JUDGMENT :

J.M. KHAZI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2016 in O.S No. 166/2012 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, by which suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed with cost, directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties after receiving balance consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- from plaintiff and also to discharge the bank loan within 60 days from the date of the judgment and decree, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to pay the outstanding bank loan with liberty to recover the same from defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, further, if defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fail to execute the registered sale deed, then plaintiff is at liberty to get it registered through Court, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to their rank before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of suit schedule properties i.e. item Nos.1 and 2 respectively and they jointly agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a sum of Rs. 17,25,000/- and on 02.06.2008 they have executed a sale agreement by receiving Rs. 4,50,000/- and they agreed to execute the regular sale deed within a period of three months i.e. on or before 02.09.2008 at the cost of the plaintiff, after discharging the bank loan and getting the land surveyed. The plaintiff has further contended that, within a period of three months, defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff with a request to extend the period fixed for the execution of the sale deed and requested plaintiff to pay further sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and after receipt of the said sum, he has endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement by extending the period by six months.

4. It is further case of the plaintiff that inspite of his repeated request and demand, defendants did not get the land surveyed and once again on 28.07.2009, defendant No. 1 requested and received another sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the pretext of repaying the bank loan and securing no due certificate and endorsed on the back portion of the sale agreement. Plaintiff has alleged that, inspite of receiving substantial sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 17,25,000/- defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not come forward to execute the sale deed and therefore without any alternative he has filed the suit.

5. Defendants have appeared and filed written statement admitting that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties. However, they have denied that they agreed to sell the suit schedule properties for a total sum of Rs. 17,25,000/- and have received Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- as pleaded in the plaint. They have pleaded that, plaintiff is running a stone crusher in the land adjoining the suit schedule properties, on account of which the crops in the lands of defendants were damaged and destroyed and therefore, plaintiff has advanced Rs. 4,50,000/- to the defendants by way of interest free loan and at that time, he has got executed the document in question by way of security to the amount advanced and has sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 2.6.2008, the defendants entered into an agreement of sale of suit schedule property with him for sale consideration of Rs. 17,25,000/- by receiving part of sale consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/-?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants failed to execute registered sale deed within the stipulated time inspite of several requests and demands?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that he was ever ready and willing to perform he part of contract?

4. Whether defendants prove that the alleged agreement of sale is concocted document?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the