A contract for the sale of property can only be enforced to the extent of a party's ownership rights, particularly where ancestral claims exist and co-ownership affects transactional authority.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2013 passed in R.A. No.54 of 2011 by the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract. It is contended that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and he agreed to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs. 1,11,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards earnest money on 23.02.2006 and executed an agreement of sale. It was agreed that the sale to be concluded after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 11,000 within 3 months by obtaining necessary documents. It is contended that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But, the defendant was not ready to perform his part of the contract.

5. Finally, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.04.2007 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. The said notice was duly served on the defendant. The defendant neither replied to the legal notice nor came forward to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule property is not the exclusive property of the defendant. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of the defendant and his children. The defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is running a money lending business and the plaintiff by paying Rs. 95,000/- out of Rs. 1,00,000/-, deducted Rs. 5,000/- as a future interest, obtained his signature on the documents. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is a loan transaction and not a sale transaction.

7. It is also contented that the family members of the defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.149 of 2007 for partition and separate possession, which is pending for consideration. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

8. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that, the defendant being the owner of suit land agreed to sell the same to him for Rs.1,11,000/- and has received earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed agreement of sale to that effect on 23.02.2006?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether defendant proves that, he has only received Rs.95,000/- from plaintiff, with no intention to sell suit property to plaintiff?

4. Whether defendant proves that, suit of plaintiff is time barred?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? 6. What order or decree?"

9. The plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and marked four documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. In rebuttal, the defe