The court established that a written agreement of sale is conclusive evidence of the parties' intentions, and the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations to obtain specific performance.

JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 8, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 passed in Original Suit No.157/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The facts in brief are that, the father of the defendant Nos.6 to 8 (Ashok) along with defendant Nos.1 to 4, have purchased the land bearing survey No.2A/1+2+3, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and 20 square yards near German Hospital, Dharwad, as per the registered sale deed dated 22.02.2002. Thereafter, the schedule property was converted for non-agricultural purpose and new number was assigned as CTS No.4B/NL. It is further averred that, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 constitute joint family and as such, registered partition deed dated 17.03.2010 has been entered into between the members of the joint family. It is further stated in the plaint that, the defendants, on account of their legal necessity, offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and as such, after negotiation between the parties, defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.87,90,500/- in favour of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs have paid Rs.18,00,000/- towards earnest money and accordingly the parties have reduced the terms and conditions of their negotiation as per the Registered Agreement of sale dated 09.08.2010. Pursuant to the same, the defendants have executed Registered Confirmation deed on 12.08.2010, agreeing to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that, the defendants have handed over the original title deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their contractual obligation in terms of the agreement of sale dated 09.08.2010, however, the defendants have not shown any interest to complete the transactions and accordingly, the plaintiffs have issued legal notice dated 21.05.2012 calling upon the defendants to complete the sale transaction in respect of the schedule property. The defendants have not responded to the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.157/2012 on the file of the trial Court seeking relief of specific performance of the contract.

4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and written statement was filed by defendant No.3, denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement of sale. It is the specific contention of the defendants that, the defendants had no intention to sell the suit schedule property and further stated that, the defendants always intended to retain the suit schedule properties for their own use and enjoyment. It is further stated in the written statement that, the defendants had received a legal notice issued by the plaintiffs on 21.05.2012 and responded through reply dated 28.05.2012 / 08.06.2012. It is further contended by the defendants that, the defendants owning sugar factory and due to financial difficulties the sugar factory became sick and as such, the defendants requested the plaintiffs for financial assistance and as such, the plaintiffs have agreed to pay Rs.18,00,000/- as loan and in the guise of the same in order to provide security for the loan, the defendants had executed the agreement of sale. It is also stated by the defendants that, on 09.08.2010, agreement of sale was executed by the defendants and in security of the said loan, the plaintiffs had received the original documents relating to schedule properties. It is further stated in the written statement that, the schedule property worth more than Rs.20 crores and the defendants have no intention to sell the suit schedule property which is situate in heart o