In this second appeal, the legal representatives

(b) to (i) of defendant have challenged the impugned

judgment and order passed by the First Appellate

Court, granting specific performance of contract by

directing legal representatives of defendant to execute

the sale deed by receiving balance consideration of

Rs.13,000/-.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

4

3.

Initially,

the

suit

was

filed

against

defendant. On his death, his legal representatives

namely defendant Nos.(a) to (i) were brought on

record and the suit was proceeded against them.

4.

Plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking

specific performance of contract dated 11.02.2011,

contending that, the original defendant was the

absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 4

acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Bhima Nagar, Tq & Dist;

Yadigiri. For his legal necessity, he agreed to sell the

suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 19 guntas for

a total sum of Rs.4,13,000/-. He executed the

registered sale agreement by receiving an advance of

Rs.4,00,000/-

and

agreed

to

receive

balance

consideration of Rs.13,000/- within a period of six

months and execute the sale deed. When he failed to

keep up with his promise, after issuing legal notice

5

dated 02.03.2012 and when defendant failed to

comply with the same, he filed the suit.

5.

After

receipt

of

suit

summons,

the

defendant though appeared through the counsel, he

did not chose to file written statement. However,

within 6 months he died and therefore his legal

representatives were brought on record.

6.

Defendant (a) has filed written statement

admitting the plaint averments. Defendant Nos.(b) to

(i) have filed separate written statement admitting

that deceased original defendant was the absolute

owner of suit schedule property. However, they have

denied the other averments. They have claimed that

there was no legal necessity to sell the suit schedule

property and that no consideration has passed under

the sale agreement. They have alleged that legal

representative No.(a) of defendant, under a false

6

pretext of transferring his name, has taken LTM of

defendant and in collusion with the plaintiff got

transferred the revenue records to his name and has

executed a false sale agreement in favour of the

plaintiff.

7.

Based on these pleadings, the trial Court

framed the following issues;

(a)

Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

that,

defendant was executed agreement of

sale by agreeing to sell the suit

schedule property on 11.05.2011 for

consideration amount of Rs.4,13,000/-

and

received

token

amount

of

Rs.4,00,000/-?

(b)

Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is

always ready and willing to perform his

part and contract?

(c)

Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

that,

defendant

is

willfully

avoiding

to

perform his part of contract?

(d)

Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the

relief

of

specific

performance

of

contract as claimed for?

(e)

What order or decree?

7

8.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff

examined himself as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2

He relied upon Exs.P1 to 4. On the other hand, legal

representative (a) of defendant has examined himself

as DW.1 and legal representative (c) of defendant has

examined himself as DW.2. No documents were

marked on behalf of the defendants.

9.

Even though the trial Court has answered

issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff by

holding that plaintiff has proved the registered sale

agreement and passing of consideration and that he

was ready and willing to perform his part of contract

and entitled for specific performance, by exercising

the discretion, the trial Court has refused to grant

specific performance of contract. On the other hand,

directed legal representatives of defendant to refund

advance of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 21% p.a.

from the date of suit till realization to the plaintiff.

8

10.

Admittedly,

none

of

the

legal

representatives of defendant have challenged the

judgment of the trial Court regarding refund of

Rs.4,00,000/- with inter