JUDGMENT

Though the appeal is listed for admission with the consent of both parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal on its merits.

The appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2021, in O.S.No.579/1993 passed by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH.23) (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court'), thereby, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for a specific performance contract is dismissed.

2. The rank of the parties is stated as before the trial Court for easy reference and convenience.

3. It is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 K.M. Munivenkatappa was the owner of the suit schedule property there was an agreement of sale dated 21.12.1986 between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff No.2 for total sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and defendant No.1 received sum of Rs.2,000/- as an advance amount. The suit schedule property is an agricultural land an extent of measuring 2 acre 2 guntas situated at Kengeri village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru City. Defendant No.1 has refused to execute the registered Sale Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has received legal notice on 21.11.1992 calling upon the defendant No.1 to execute a sale deed but defendant No.1 did not execute the Sale Deed. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit on 21.01.1993 for specific performance of contract.

4. Defendant No.1 has filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint defendant No.1 denied execution of agreement of sale as pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, it is the total Rs. 10,00,000/- with the case made by the plaintiff by the defendant No.1.

5. Defendant No.2 is a purchaser of land. There is a pendency of the suit proceedings defendant No.2 was admitted on 05.09.2007 and filed a written statement. The defendant No.2 contended that he is a bonafied purchaser from defendant No.1 and further denied all the averments made in the plaint.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the trail Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the deceased defendant K.M.Munivenkarappa had agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and executed an agreement of sale deed dated 21.12.1986 and received an amount of Rs.2,000/- as advance consideration amount under the said agreement?

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been always ready and willing to perform their part of obligation under the agreement?

3) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

4) Whether the valuation made to subject matter is not proper and the Court fee paid is insufficient?

5) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that he is a bonafied purchaser of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration without notice as alleged?

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of specific enforcement of contract as prayed for?

7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of possession as prayed for?

8) To what order or decree?

Additional Issues:

(1) Whether suit is not maintainable as stated in para 5(a) of the amended written statement of defendant No.1(c)?

(2)Whether suit agreement is void and unenforceable as stated in para 5(b) of the amended written statement of defendant No.1(c)?

7. Plaintiff No. 2 is examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 plaintiff No. 1 was examined himself as PW.2 and documents EX.P.8 to EX.P.10. In all documents EX.P.1 to EX.P.11 are marked on the side of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 is examined himself as DW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as per EX.D.1 to D.7.

8. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the agreement of sale, execution of sale was not proved. Further, the contract is between the minor son of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1. Hence there is no contract as it is void one. Further, the exercise of discretion that grant of decr