In specific performance suits, if all necessary parties do not sign the sale agreement, specific performance may be denied; however, refund of earnest money can be sought if properly pleaded, even through amendment.

JUDGMENT :

R. NATARAJ, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.50 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15-09- 2021, by which the suit for specific performance was dismissed.

2.........

(i) The suit in OS No.50 of 2013 was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15-09-2012, executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5, agreeing to convey the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-. The said defendants had received a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-, and the balance was to be paid at the time of executing and registering the deed of absolute sale conveying the suit property, within which time, the defendants were required to clear of all the dues and keep the documents ready. The plaintiff claimed that after the lapse of three months, he requested the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the deed of absolute sale. However, defendants were postponing the same on one or the other reason. The plaintiff claimed that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendants were delaying the conclusion of the transaction. Accordingly, the plaintiff was advised to seek for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement of sale.

(ii) The suit was contested by defendant Nos.2 and 3 by filing a written statement, wherein, they contended that on 10-11-2007, defendant No.2 was appointed as Marketing Supervisor on the directions of the plaintiff, who was a Managing Director of the Company. During his service, defendant No.2 had sold 1,400 Ashok Leyland vehicles and thereby the plaintiff was due of a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- being the incentive for the sale of vehicles and arrears of salary. Plaintiff allegedly escaped his liability but on the contrary alleged misappropriation against defendant No.2 so as to dismiss him from service. He claimed that neither he nor any other defendants signed the alleged agreement of sale dated 15-09-2012. It was contended that one Sri.B.Mohammed Ismail and his wife Smt.Zahira Bi were his parents and without obtaining the signatures of defendant No.2 on page Nos.1 and 2 of the agreement of sale, the signatures were created on the last page of the document by the plaintiff. It was contended that all the children of Mr. B.Mohammed Ismail were entitled to a definite share in the suit property. It was contended that the plaintiff did not pay Rs.17,00,000/- under the agreement of sale as contended. They also alleged that it was created to deceive them and knock off the suit property. The defendant No.2 contended that he worked in a company where the plaintiff was the Managing Director from 12.11.2007 and was honoured with best seller awards in the year 2010-11. He claimed that the plaintiff, in order to promote defendant No.2, obtained sale deeds from him and created the document in question. He claimed that he had issued a notice dated 13.12.2012 for return of the registered documents and some blank signed bond papers. Despite the receipt of the notice, plaintiff neither replied to it nor returned the documents. Again, defendants No.1 and 2 caused a notice on the company where the plaintiff was Managing Director from 14.12.2012.

However, the company did not return the documents and did not reply to the notice. Feeling threatened by the illegal activities of the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 3 had lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Ballari and the PSI of Cowl Bazaar, Rural Police Station, Munirabad Police Station. They claimed that the plaintiff is a known politician in Hubli-Dharwad constituency and had threatened the defendants by lodging false complaint on 24.01.2013 with Munirabad Police Station in Crime No.14/2013. They alleged that the police did not take any action against the plaintiffs for reasons that are obvious. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 were constrained to lodge a private complaint in PCR No.35/2014 on t