The court emphasizes that specific performance cannot be denied without compelling evidence despite a plaintiff's established readiness and willingness to perform the contract as per law.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. H.R. Sanjeeve Gowda, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Girisha N., learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Appellants are the defendants No.1, 3 and 5 before the Trial Court in O.S. No.713/2013 which was filed for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell dated 23.11.2011 in respect of the immovable property which is a vacant land bearing Sy.No.109/2 to the extent of 23 acres 12 guntas out of the total extent of 11 acres 34 ghanta situated in Bannikuppe Village, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, bounded on East by : land of Kumar, West by : Government road, North by : land of Maria and South by : the remaining portion of the land in Sy.No.109/2 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').

-

3. Suit was contested by the defendants by filing detailed written statement. Learned Trial Judge has raised necessary issues and after due trail, suit was decreed partly and directed the defendants to return the advance consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of agreement till date of payment.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.55/2021.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after notifying the defendants, heard the arguments of the parties in the light of the appeal grounds and on cumulative consideration of the factual aspects and the point of law, allowed the appeal and decreased the suit of the plaintiff in entirety.

6. A Cross Appeal said to have been filed by the defendants and since there was no court fee paid on the cross appeal, the cross appeal was not considered by the First Appellate Court on merits.

-

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, present second appeal came to be filed by the defendants on the following grounds:

 The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is arbitrary, illegal and not in accordance with law and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside.

 The appellants further submit that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is opposed to the principles of natural justice and all probabilities.

 The appellant further submits that, Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 has gravely erred in considering the facts and circumstances available on record as per law and blindly passed the impugned judgment and decree by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court without assigning any valid reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court, hence the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2021 is liable to be set-aside.

-

 The appellant further submit that, it is a well settled law that, while considering and passing the judgment and decree in any appeal it is a mandatory to the Hon'ble Courts to consider the cross objections / cross appeal filed by the other side in any appeal a