The court affirmed that a contract can only be enforced if valid; the absence of signed endorsement invalidates claims for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI MULIMANI, J.

Sri.S.Subrahmanya., counsel for the appellant and Sri.Shivakumar.U., counsel for respondents 1(A to C), have appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8).

3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaint averments are these:

Smt.B.C.Parimala - the defendant is the owner of a property bearing Katha No.938, Assessment No.789, Property No.46, situated at Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Rajarajeshwarinagar CMC, Bangalore South Taluk, having acquired the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 16.12.2004, and the katha is standing in her name. She offered to sell the property for her legal necessities. The plaintiff needed property for his use and benefit, agreed to purchase the same for a valuable consideration, free from encumbrances. After negotiation, the sale price was agreed and fixed at Rs.4,25,000/-. The defendant executed an agreement for sale on 11.11.2005 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for the agreed sale consideration. On the date of execution of the agreement for sale, the defendant received advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash from the plaintiff. The defendant delivered Xerox copies of the sale deed under which she purchased the suit property. The balance consideration amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the time stipulated for the completion of the sale of the scheduled property was only three months from the date of the agreement for sale. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within three months from the date of the agreement for sale by receiving the balance amount in favor of the plaintiff.

Subsequently, the defendant approached the plaintiff and received a further advance amount of Rs.50,000/- by cash from the plaintiff and an endorsement was made to that effect in the agreement for sale. Thus, the defendant received a total advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the sale consideration of the suit property from the plaintiff.

It is contended that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations, i.e., to pay the balance consideration amount and was eager to get the sale deed of the schedule property registered in his favor. However, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or another. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 13.03.2006 and called upon the defendant to furnish relevant original documents of title in respect of the schedule property.

The defendant failed to receive the notice, and it was returned with postal shara "Intimation delivered - door locked - not claimed". A copy of the notice was sent under Certificate of Posting. The defendant received a copy of the notice but did not reply and failed to execute a registered sale deed. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had entered into a binding contract of agreement for sale in respect of the suit schedule property and had received a substantial advance amount, and instead of performing her part of the obligations under the agreement for sale, made attempts to alienate the property to others to cheat and defraud the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance.

After service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed a written statement. She specifically contended that the time limit for completing the transaction was admittedly three months from the da