This appeal is filed by the appellant 3 plaintiff

challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.

898/2006 dated 30.11.2009 by the Civil Judge (Senior

Division and JMFC), Devanahalli whereby the suit of the

3

plaintiff for the relief of specific performance came to be

dismissed.

The parties will be referred to as per their rankings

before the trial Court for the sake of brevity. The appellant 3

plaintiff and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were defendant Nos. 1

to 3.

The case of the appellant 3 plaintiff before the trial

Court was that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have entered into an

agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003 with him and agreed to

sell

the

suit

schedule

properties

for

valuable

sale

consideration of Rs.24,75,000/- and received a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- as advance. They have agreed to execute

registered sale deed immediately after getting permission from

the competent authority and after receiving the balance sale

consideration of Rs.17,75,000/-. The suit schedule property

was granted to the defendants through darakastu vide

Tahsildar order bearing No. LND.SR.1/115/78-79 dated

4

04.11.1982 in favour of defendant No. 1. Later, under

Panchayat palu patti the defendants have divided the said

land and accordingly land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas was

given to defendant No.1 and 30 guntas of land was given to

defendant No.3. The family arrangement/palu patti deed

was acted upon and khatha and pahani were mutated into

their respective names. It was the further case of the plaintiff

that the defendants had approached the competent authority

by filing an application on 16.01.2004 and obtained an order

of permission for alienation of the suit schedule property on

30.03.2005. Inspite of obtaining such permission the

defendant did not approach the plaintiff for sale of property,

but acting malfidely they have issued notice on 28.04.2005

with a false and untenable allegation leveled against the

plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice

calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed in

respect of suit schedule property in his favour, by receiving

the balance sale consideration. Inspite of receiving the said

5

notice the defendants have not come forward to execute the

registered sale deed.

4.

The

defendants

filed

their

written

statement

contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or

on facts and it is liable to be dismissed. They have denied the

execution of the sale agreement dated 22.12.2003 and receipt

of the advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and agreeing to

execute registered sale deed for total consideration of

Rs.24,75,000/-. They have also denied the terms and

conditions that they have to obtain permission from the

authority to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff. They

have also denied the alleged Panchayat palu patti and on the

basis of the said document the khatha and pahani were

mutated in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of 1 acre 30

guntas of land and 30 guntas in the name of defendant No. 3.

They have also denied that they have obtained permission of

authority on 30.03.2005 to sell the suit schedule property in

favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the

6

plaintiff has relinquished his right of enforcement of the

contract against the defendants on the date of receipt of the

legal notice sent by them. It is further averred that the

defendants being fed up with the attitude of the plaintiff,

finally got issued the said notice. The plaintiff, after going

through the said notice has got issued legal notice raising

untenable grounds.

5.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial

Judge has framed the following issues:

i.

Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants being

the owners of the suit schedule properties have agreed

to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.24,75,000/- and that they have received a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- as advance by executing the sale

agreement dated 22.12.2003?

ii.

Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is alway