Trial Court's lack of opportunity for defendants to argue merits of the case was a violation of procedural fairness, warranting a remand for reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. Defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 in O.S.No.60/2013 are before this Court in this appeal.

3. The learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sira, (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") has decreed the suit in O.S.No.60/2013 with costs against defendant Nos.1, 4 to 10 vide judgment dated 26.03.2024 by directing them to execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff within six months from the date of said judgment and decree, failing which, the plaintiff is at a liberty to get registered the Sale Deed through the court officer.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.

5. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

The suit in O.S.No.60/2013 was filed by the plaintiff for relief of specific performance of contract against the defendants directing them to execute an absolute Sale Deed in his favour in respect of suit schedule property and such other reliefs.

6. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property and they approached the plaintiff by agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties for total sale consideration of Rs.21,59,000/. Accordingly, on 12.03.2012 they have received a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- out of total sale consideration on the same day before the presence of witnesses and executed the Agreement for Sale by agreeing to execute the registered Sale Deed by receiving Rs.11,50,000/- by getting the khatha of the suit schedule property changing in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, as the same stood in the name of the Badagiriyanna (i.e. father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2) within 3 months from the date of the agreement and defendant Nos.1 to 6 affixed their thumb impression to the said Sale Agreement in the presence of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff repeatedly requested defendant Nos.1 to 8 to receive the balance consideration and to execute the registered Sale Deed. However, the defendants went on postponing the same by saying that the khatha was not yet changed in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also assured that they will get the survey sketch after changing the khatha. Later, the plaintiff got the knowledge about changing of khatha in the name of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the beginning of the September 2013 and when the plaintiff requested for the execution of the registered Sale Deed, defendant Nos.1 to 8 expressed their difficulty in getting prepared the survey sketch. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 09.10.2012. It was stated that the said notice was personally served on defendant No.4 and the remaining defendants were not served. The plaintiff received the reply notice stating that the alleged Agreement is concocted and fabricated and defendant Nos.1 to 8 have denied the execution of the Agreement for Sale. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained Encumbrance Certificate where he came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 8 have executed the registered Sale Deed in favour of the defendant No.9. Therefore, defendant No.9 was made as party to the suit. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The cause of action thus arose on 12.03.2012 on the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

7. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 appeared before the court through their counsel and filed the written