This is a plaintiff’s appeal. The present appellant as

a plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.55/2017, in the

Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court").

against

defendants

seeking

the

relief

of

specific

performance and directing the defendants to execute the

registered Sale Deed in his favour as per the Sale

Agreement dated 28.10.2016 in respect of the suit

schedule property.

2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the

Trial Court was that, himself and defendants are known to

each other. Defendant No.1 is the mother of defendants

No.2 and 3 and they are the owners of suit schedule

property. That defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit

3

schedule

property,

which

is

an

agricultural

land,

measuring 5 acres 24 guntas in Sy.No.273/2, located at

Guddada Rangavvana Halli of Chitradurga Taluk, for a

consideration of sum of `15,00,000/- for their family

necessity and to purchase some other property. On the

date 28.10.2016, defendant No.1 executed an Agreement

of Sale in favour of the plaintiff and received a partial sale

consideration of sum of `14,50,000/- as an advance

amount. The first defendant had earlier filed an Original

Suit bearing O.S.No.10/2016, on the file of learned II

Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Chitradurga against

one Smt. Hemalatha with respect to suit schedule

property. It was agreed to between the present plaintiff

and defendant No.1 that after disposal of the said suit, by

rectifying the records and after payment of the balance

amount, the defendant No.1 would execute the Sale Deed.

If the judgment comes against defendant No.1, then she

would return the earnest money with interest at the rate

of 24 % per annum. The suit in O.S.No.10/2016 came to

be decreed in favour of the present defendants on

4

28.01.2017 and Khata was also mutated in the names of

the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the

defendants and demanded them to execute a registered

Sale Deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of a

sum of `50,000/-. The defendant No.1 sought for some

time, but, she did not comply the request. As such, the

plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2017, calling

upon the defendants to execute the registered Sale Deed

on 09.05.2017 and asked defendant no.1 to come to the

office of the Sub-Registrar to execute the Sale Deed.

Though notice was served upon defendant No.1, neither

she came to the office of the Sub-Registrar nor executed

the Sale Deed nor even replied to the notice.

Though the plaintiff has been ready and willing to

perform his part of the contract, however, the defendant

No.1 did not execute the Sale Deed. Since the defendants

No.2 and 3 had gone to foreign country, as such, in their

absence, defendant No.1 had executed the Agreement of

Sale and had undertaken to execute Sale Deed along with

defendants No.2 and 3. Since defendants failed to execute

5

the Sale Deed, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the

present suit against the defendants in the trial court.

3.

In response to the suit summons served upon

them, it was only defendant No.1 who appeared through

her counsel and filed written statement. Defendants No.2

and 3 remained ex-parte. It was contended by defendant

No.1 in her written statement that the plaintiff was a

known person to their family. The plaintiff was working as

an Assistant to her husband late Sri. Suresh @ Surendran

who was doing business in organic fertiliser and sale of

agricultural

implements.

The

said

Suresh

died

on

24.12.2010. After his death, the defendants succeeded to

his estate and RTC Pahani changed in their names. In the

meantime,

the

defendants

had

filed

a

suit

in

O.S.No.10/2016 against one Smt. Hemalatha with respect

to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff who continued

his work towards the defendants even after the death of

Suresh @ Surendran, was also helping defendant No.1 in

filing the said O.S.10/2016 and prosecuting the same. In

the