The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a claim of specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff must show readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and the court must consider the innocence and hardship of other parties involved in the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in RA No.24/2010 on the file of Pr. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hospet dated 18.11.2010.

2. I refer the parties as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Plaintiff has filed OS NO.64/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Hagaribommanahalli for the relief of Specific Performance of the contract. It was the case of plaintiff that defendant No.1 had executed agreement of sale dated 12.07.2007 agreeing to sell suit property bearing survey No.123/2 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas of Kenchanabandi village of H.B.Halli taluka for Rs.8,500/per acre. According to the said agreement, defendant ought to have executed sale deed within one and half years from the date of agreement by receiving the balance of sale consideration. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, defendant No.1 had went on postponing the execution of the sale deed. Prior to filing of the suit, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 has executed registered sale deed dated 09.08.2007 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Plaintiff has issued notice to defendant Nos.1 to 4 calling upon them to execute and register sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance of sale consideration. The said notice was served on defendant Nos.2 to 4. Defendant No.1 had replied to the notice with untenable information. With these reasons plaintiff prayed to direct the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to execute the registered sale deed in terms of agreement dated 12.07.2007 in favour of plaintiff.

4. Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have contended that defendant No.1 has sold suit property to them by receiving consideration of Rs.1,17,000/- on 09.08.2007 and defendant nos.2 to 4 have been in possession of the suit property. They denied all other averments of the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Learned trial Judge framed necessary issues basing on the pleadings of the parties.

6. Plaintiff examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 examined DW1 to DW3 and got marked Ex.D1 to D3.

7. Learned trial judge appreciating the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.03.2010 and directed defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed.

8. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have challenged the said judgment before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Hospet in RA No.24/2010. The learned First Appellate Judge after reconsidering the evidence on record by impugned judgment allowed the appeal and directed the defendant No.1 to refund earnest money with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of agreement of sale till the date of payment of amount. Same is challenged in the present Regular Second Appeal.

9. Appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law :

“Whether the First Appellate Court has committed a serious error in reversing the considered judgment of the trial Court, without there being an issue regarding the defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the bonafide purchasers of the schedule properties for value without notice and thus judgment of the First Appellate Court has become perverse and illegal?”

10. I have heard the arguments of learned advocate for appellant.

11. Learned advocate for appellant vehemently contended that both the Courts below have held that defendant No.1 had executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and received part of the amount of sale consideration. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Defendant No.1 within a period of one month from the date of execution of agreement of sale has sold the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Defendants No.2 to 4 in the cross examination of DWs.1 to 3 admitted that plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property. Therefore, they are not bonafide purchasers of the suit property. It was a collusive transaction between