The legal representatives of defendant No.1 in O.S. No.

298/2007 on the file of learned II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Hubli,

(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) has preferred this

appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011,

decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of

the contract directing defendant No.1 to execute the registered

sale deed in respect of the suit lands by receiving the balance

consideration amount, within four months from the date of the

judgment. Defendant No.1 said to have died after dismissal of

the suit before the trial Court by passing the impugned

judgment and decree. Therefore, the wife and son of deceased

defendant No.1 have preferred this appeal.

Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the

Trial Court.

Brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiffs are as

follows:

Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed the suit O.S. No. 298/2007

against defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking specific performance of

the contract, i.e., agreement for sale dated 17.10.2004 and

03.07.2006, by accepting the balance sale consideration of

- 4 -

Rs.10,000/- or in the alternate to refund Rs. 11 lakhs with

interest at 18% p.a. from 17.10.2004.

The schedule appended to the plaint describes the

agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 753/A measuring 3.18 acres

and Sy. No. 757 measuring 0.28 acres both situated at Unkal

Village, Hubballi Taluk, with the boundaries mentioned therein.

It is stated that defendant No.1 is a Chartered Accountant

by profession and is settled in Bengaluru. He is owning the

schedule properties which are situated by the side of the

agricultural lands belonging to the plaintiffs. Since defendant

No.1 was in financial necessity, he approached plaintiff No.1

through one Prof. E.V. Bilekal and offered to sell the schedule

properties. Plaintiffs who are in search of the agricultural lands

nearby their lands readily agreed to purchase the same. The

plaintiffs have saved Rs.11 lakhs from out of their income and

kept this amount with Prof. E.V. Bilekal who deposited the said

amount in Canara Bank, Main Branch, Dharwad. Sale talks

were held in the presence of Prof. E.V. Bilekal and others

during April, 2004. Defendant and his Personal Assistant Mr.

Hosmani along with Prof. E.V. Bilekal purchased two demand

drafts for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.9,30,000/- respectively, on

- 5 -

20.04.2004 and 22.04.2004, being the consideration amount

towards purchase of the land. Prof. E.V. Bilekal purchased

demand drafts from out the amount which was paid by the

plaintiffs, which he had deposited in the Canara Bank. As per

the instructions of defendant No.1, demand drafts were issued

in the names of different persons. Thereafter, defendant No.1

executed the agreement for sale in favour of plaintiff No.1 on

17.10.2004 and agreed to execute the sale deed by receiving

the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- in cash.

It is contended that defendant No.1 was under the

obligation to obtain necessary permission from the Deputy

Commissioner for sale of the suit properties, in terms of the

agreement. There was an entry about one Yallappa Hadapad in

column no. 11 of the RTC. Therefore, defendant No.1 agreed

to execute the sale deed free from encumbrances, after getting

the entry deleted in the revenue records. Accordingly,

defendant No.1 got the order dated 26.08.2006 for deleting

name of Yallappa Hadapad in the revenue records.

It is contended that defendant No.1 being the Chartered

Accountant informed the plaintiff that if the entire consideration

amount is shown in the sale deed that will attract tax and

- 6 -

induced the plaintiff to get another agreement. Accordingly, on

03.07.2006 plaintiff nos.1 to 4 being innocent and illiterate

villagers entered into an agreement for sale with defendant

no.1 showing the consideration amount of Rs.3,13,500/- being

the sale consideration for purchase of the schedule properties

and stated that he received an amount of Rs.2,23,500/- a