A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate the existence of a valid contract and show readiness to perform, with the burden of proof resting on them; failure to do so results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed in R.A.No.181/2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows :

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.84/1, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, situated at Lalitadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 entered into a sale agreement dated 12.01.2002 with the plaintiff society for alienating the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre. At the time of the execution of a sale agreement, defendants No.1 to 3 received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount and pleaded that they require one year time to complete the sale transaction, as there are valuable Mango and Coconut trees in the said land. After the execution of the sale agreement, defendants No.1 to 3 received the further amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.2003 and 07.01.2003 respectively from the plaintiff society as a part consideration amount and went on dodging the matter on one or the other pretext. In total, the defendants have received Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society requested defendants No.1 to 3 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed, but, defendants No. 1 to 3 did not come forward to complete the sale transaction. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 illegally on 25.01.2006 for a higher price. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

4. Defendants No.1 to 3 have filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint execution of a sale agreement and receiving of part consideration amount regarding suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit property is the joint family property owned and possessed by the family members of defendant No.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 have no right to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff society or execute any sale agreement. It is contended that the plaintiff society obtained the signatures of the few members of defendant No.1 family with a malafide intention. It is contended that the alleged agreement of sale is inoperative and not maintainable, as the plaintiff society has not complied with the terms and the suit filed by the plaintiff society is barred by limitation. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for mis- joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties.

5. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have executed a registered sale deed conveying the other joint family properties in favour of the plaintiff society. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have never agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff society. It is contended that the alleged Oppanda Patra is a document that does not cast any liability on defendants No.1 to 3, nor have defendants No.1 to 3 executed any such document. Defendants No.1 to 3 have retained the suit schedule property. No negotiations