Specific performance of contracts is upheld if executed agreements are supported by consistent and credible testimony, with the burden on the denying party to prove invalidity.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment and decree dated 17.03.2023 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Pandavapura, in R.A.no.35/2022 and judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, in O.S.no.255/2015, this second appeal is filed.

2. Sri Akshay S., learned counsel appearing for Sri Srinivasa D.C., advocate for appellant submitted that appeal was by defendant no.1 in suit for specific performance. It was submitted, O.S.no.255/2015 was filed by respondent no.1 herein (plaintiff) seeking for decree of specific performance on Agreements of Sale dated 20.07.2012, 20.10.2012 and 12.02.2013, whereunder defendant no.1 agreed to sell immovable property measuring 18 guntas of land bearing Old Sy.no.354/2B (New Sy.no.354/4) situated at Thonnur village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk in favour of plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.3,24,000/- and by receiving Rs.1,62,000/- as advance under Agreement of Sale dated 20.07.2012; Rs.1,00,000/- under Agreement of Sale dated 20.10.2012 and Rs.12,000/- under Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2013 leaving balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- to execute sale deed by receiving balance amount, within three months.

3. It was stated that though plaintiff had called upon defendants to perform their part of obligation, defendants had failed to do so. Therefore, legal notice was issued on 22.07.2015 to appear before Sub-Registrar, Pandavapura, for receiving balance sale consideration and to execute sale deed. Despite receipt of notice, there was no reply, giving rise to cause of action for filing suit.

4. It was submitted, on receipt of summons, defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed written statement denying execution of Agreements of Sale. On other hand, it was contented that defendant no.1 had borrowed sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff agreeing to repay with interest at rate of 1.50% per month. At that time, plaintiff had obtained signatures of defendant no.1 on blank documents and which by colluding with scribe and witnesses, utilized for preparation of false Agreements of Sale and it was asserted that defendant no.1 had replied to plaintiff’s legal notice on 06.08.2015. Besides it was claimed that suit property was ancestral property and never intended to be sold.

5. Defendants no.2 and 3 filed separate written statement denying plaint averments. It was contented that suit property was ancestral property of defendants and defendant no.1 had misused entries in revenue records exclusively in name of defendant no.1 for depriving interests of defendants no.2 and 3. It was contended that defendant no.1 had no exclusive right to sell suit property which was joint family property and sought for dismissal of suit.

6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:

ISSUES

1) Whether plaintiff proves that, the defendant has executed sale agreement in respect of suit schedule property on 20.07.2012 in favour of plaintiff, for sale consideration of Rs.3,24,000/- out of which the defendant has received Rs.1,62,000/- as advance?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant have agreed to execute final sale deed in respect of suit schedule property within three months from the date of execution of sale agreement?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff has performed his readiness and willingness his part of contract?

4) Whether defendant proves that, the plaintiff has obtained the signature of the defendant on the blank paper for the purpose of loan advanced by the plaintiff as contended in para No.3 of the written statement?

5) Whether plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff is entitle for the re