A suit for specific performance is untenable if the contract has been terminated, unless there is a declaration that such termination is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2012 of the Fast Track Court - IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short 'the Trial Court') in O.S.No.36/2011.

2. We have heard Shri. Shreevatsa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Parvathy Nair, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/defendant and Shri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. P. B. Raju, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts:

The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24.08.2010. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the agreement was executed for the sale of the suit schedule property and an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the defendant. Three months time was fixed for payment of the balance amount of Rs.21,20,000/- out of the agreed consideration amount of Rs.31,20,000/. The plaintiffs contended that they were ready with the balance sale consideration and had called upon the defendant to register the sale deed, but, no steps were taken. On these grounds, the suit was filed.

5. The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement admitting the execution of the sale agreement, but contended that the agreement was insufficiently stamped. It was further contended that there was a sentence fraudulently sought to be inserted in the agreement that physical possession of the suit schedule property would be handed over to the purchaser but it was only after striking out the said sentence that the agreement was executed. However, the plaintiffs had trespassed into the property and put up a shed, which amounted to a violation of the agreement conditions. Thereafter, notice dated 28.10.2010 was issued by the plaintiffs calling upon the defendant to fix the date of registration which was duly replied on 13.11.2010, refusing to execute the registered sale deed and calling upon the plaintiffs to collect the earnest amount. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the relief of specific performance under Section 16(b) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 and Section 16(1) of the Indian CONTRACT ACT , 1872 .

6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the defendant proves that the agreement dated 24.08.2010 entered between him and the plaintiffs is a invalid document?

2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have trespassed into the suit schedule property without his consent and violated the terms of the agreement and it amounts to breach of contract?

3. Whether the defendant proves that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is barred U/s 16(b) of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT and section 16(1) of the Indian CONTRACT ACT ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 24.08.2010?"

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Trial Court found that the plaintiffs had paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty before the District Registrar on 05.01.2011 and that the document as admissible in evidence. Further, it was found that the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs had trespassed into the property on 20.10.2010 could not be believed. Furt