Specific Performance

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018, passed in O.S.No.33/2011, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, granting the relief of specific performance and also questioned the judgment and decree dated 24.09.20128 passed in R.A.No.15/2018 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of this Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.5,18,000/- and received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- out of sale consideration through a Bank Draft. The defendants have agreed to execute the regular Sale Deed within nine months from the date of sale agreement and it was noticed that in the akarband the extent was mentioned as 0.19 guntas instead of 18½ guntas and the resurvey also was in progress. In the meantime, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have approached the plaintiff on 14.09.2007 and requested him to pay Rs.1,00,000/- out of the remaining sale consideration and the same was paid. In total, paid an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. Again on 05.02.2010, defendant No.1 came to the plaintiff and requested him to pay Rs.50,000/-and accordingly made the payment of Rs.50,000/-. In total, they made the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- out of sale consideration of Rs.5,18,000/-. The mistake was rectified in the month of June 2010. After that, the plaintiff had demanded the defendants to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale. But the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 05.08.2010, in turn, the defendants issued an untenable reply. It is also contended that while issuing the notice, the payment of Rs.50,000/- made was not mentioned. Hence, another notice was issued on 17.08.2010, the same was also served on him and replied to the said notice and denies the execution of documents – Exs.P2 and P3.

4. The defendants in the written statement admitted the execution of sale agreement dated 16.07.2007, but contended that the plaintiff had taken the signature of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the foot of the stamp paper of Rs.50/- by stating that it is required for submitting the same before the revenue authority for getting the rectification of the mistake in the akarband and the plaintiff had also obtained the signatures of the defendant Nos.4 to 6 on the other side of the said stamp papers and the plaintiff has utilized the same in creation of the documents -Exs.P2 and P3. It is contended that they have not executed the documents-Exs.P2 and P3 and totally denied the documents – Exs.P2 and P3 and also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. A specific defense was taken that the alleged agreement dated 14.09.2007 and the documents – Exs.P5 to 10 are created and concocted. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and also the additional issues. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 20. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 16. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record has decreed the suit and answering the issues on limitation as negative and the contention is that the alleged agreements dated 14.09.2007 and 05.02.2010 are concocted and created documents and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the defendants have taken lot of time to get the mistake rectified in the revenue and survey records and granted decree. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal in R.A.No.15/2018 was filed. The grounds urged before the First