JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants who are questioning the judgment and decree of the Courts below granting discretionary relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No. 312/2006 in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 27/2 which is assigned new Sy. No. 111 totally measuring 4 acres. The respondent/plaintiff specifically contended that the appellants/defendants are absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It was also specifically pleaded in the plaint that the katha and the revenue records stand in the name of appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that the appellants/defendants offered to sell the suit schedule property and the respondent/plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, the present appellants/defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 05.07.2005 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 7,00,000/- for 4 acres. The appellants/defendants received an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- and it was further agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration.

The respondent/plaintiff further specifically contended that the appellants/defendants while executing the suit agreement assured the respondent/plaintiff that the suit schedule property is not at all encumbered and thereby agreed to handover the original title deed at the time of registration. It was further stated that the transaction was agreed to be completed within a period of three months. The respondent/plaintiff has further pleaded that on 02.08.2005, the appellants/defendants have received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for legal necessity.

The grievance of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below is that inspite of having agreed to sell the suit schedule property within a period of three months, the appellants/defendants failed to perform their part of contract and this compelled the respondent/plaintiff to issue a legal notice which was served on all the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants have issued a reply notice and by doing so, the appellants/defendants have stoutly denied the contents of the legal notice. This compelled the respondent/plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 312/2006.

The appellants/defendants, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The appellants/defendants stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The appellant No. 1 specifically contended that their joint family comprises other members who are not party to the suit agreement. There was denial of the very execution of the suit agreement in favour of the defendant No. 1. The appellants/defendants have taken a specific contention that they have not at all entered into any transaction with the respondent/plaintiff. The appellants/defendants have specifically stated in the written statement that they offered to sell the suit schedule property to one Chinnabuddi, who has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on various dates. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that since they have not entered into any transaction with the respondent/plaintiff, they are ready to repay the amount paid.

The appellants/defendants also contended that since the suit schedule property is a granted land, there is non-alienation clause in the grant order and thereby the respondent/plaintiff cannot enforce the suit agreement in the background of non-alienation clause still in operation. The appellants/defendants also contended that the sale price reflected in the suit agreement is inadequate. They have specifically contended that one acre of land is worth more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. On these set of defences, the