The court confirmed that an executed sale agreement constitutes a binding contractual obligation, dismissing claims that it functioned solely as a loan security.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance based on the sale agreement dated 03.04.2000 is that, Sri C.V. Lokesh, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 along with their father have executed the said agreement of sale for sale consideration of Rs.2,55,000/- and entire sale consideration has been paid on the very same day. Inspite of the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence the plaintiff caused the issuance of legal notice and the defendants replied to the same and hence without any other alternative, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance.

4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement in pursuance of the suit summons. It is contended that during the year 2000, Sri C.V.Lokesh was constructing a house building at Vidyanagar Extension, Hassan and in that connection, he was in need of some financial assistance and at that juncture, the plaintiff, being a close relative offered to help the said C.V. Lokesh and in that regard insisted for a document as a means of security towards the loan amount that would be advanced by him and in the said circumstances, the alleged agreement dated 03.04.2000 came into existence. At the time of execution of the said agreement dated 03.04.2000, these defendants were made as parties to the said document at the instance of the plaintiff only and much against to their will and wishes saying that the said document was being taken only as a security to the amount that would be advanced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was so specific that even defendant No.3 was made party to the agreement and his signature was obtained to the agreement inspite of the known fact that he was then a minor. It is contended that the suit schedule property was the only ancestral building at Belur and convenient for their stay therein for the management/looking after their landed properties nearby Cheekanahally Village, Belur Taluk and there was no any intention of alienating the suit schedule property by the defendants and also contended that in terms of the clause, the amount is repayable with interest. It is also contended that Sri C.V. Lokesh, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 and 3 before his death had repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff and demanded for the return of the agreement dated 03.04.2000 executed in his favour. But the plaintiff went on dodging the matter and in the meanwhile, Sri C.V. Lokesh passed away and the said document remained with the plaintiff and later the plaintiff concealing all the above said facts and misusing the said document, got issued a legal notice and later filed the above said suit. The said document is not arising out of free and conscious mind of the defendants and the same cannot be enforceable.

5. The Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 16. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 8. The Trial Court having taken note of