The plaintiff must prove the existence of a sale agreement and readiness to perform, which was not established in this case.

This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.279/2007 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Pavagada (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 25.07.2019 passed in R.A.No.33/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

2. The above suit is filed for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale, in respect of property measuring East- West 30 feet and North-South 20 feet being 1/4th share in respect of site property measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 80 situated at Y.N. Yosakote Town, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant had entered into Oral agreement on 01.11.1998, wherein the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.80,000/-, that he paid the said sum of Rs.80,000/- on the very same day. That upon receipt of the said consideration, the possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff and since then he has been in the possession of the suit schedule property. It is his further case that subsequent to 26.04.2001, the said oral agreement was reduced into a written agreement, wherein the terms of oral agreement has been reiterated and that defendant had to execute the sale deed as and when the plaintiff demanded for sale deed. It is further contended that, thereafter plaintiff on several occasions made oral requests to the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, defendant failed to comply with the same constraining him to issue a notice on 12.05.2005 and thereafter filing the above suit.

4. Defendant appeared through his counsel and filed the Written Statement denying the plaint averments and specifically contended that the plaintiff is the son-in-law of the defendant No.1, he was asked to stay in the suit property as a tenant and there was no intention of selling the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and the same cannot be sold as the rights of other members are vested in it. That the plaintiff stayed in the said suit property for 09 years as a tenant and when he was asked to vacate the premises, he came out with the false plea that the property was sold to him by creating sale agreement and thereafter filed the suit. Hence, sought for dismal of the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

''1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants executed sale agreement dated 26-04-2001 reducing into writing the oral agreement to sell dated 01-11-1998?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over suit property as on the date of suit?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves cause of action?

5. Whether defendants prove that the agreement is unenforceable due to the presence of other joint owners?''

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed?

7. What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and additional witness has been examined in his favour as PW.2 and exhibited 7 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. In order to prove their defence, defendant No.1(f) and defendant No.2 examined themselves as DW.1 and DW.2, one additional witness has been examined in their favour as DW.3 and exhibited 5 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5. On appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 6 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree plaintiff filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.33/2017 before the First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds urged the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1).Whether the plaintiff/appellant proved the sale agreement ? 2). Whether the