This

captioned

regular

first

appeal

is

filed

by

unsuccessful defendant Nos.3 and 4 who are questioning the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.25/1998 dated

20.01.2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chitradurga, wherein

the suit filed by plaintiff seeking relief of specific performance

of contract is granted and defendants were directed to hand

over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in

favour of plaintiff.

2.

For the sake of brevity, the parties will be referred

as per their respective ranks held before the trial court.

Facts leading to the case are that:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of

contract. The subject matter of the suit is a residential house

bearing Municipal Khatha No.779 situated at Gopalapura,

4

Hiriyur Town. The present suit is filed by plaintiff by

specifically contending that defendant No.1 offered to sell the

suit property and accordingly executed the agreement to sale

on 23.10.1997 for sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and

received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance amount. The

plaintiff further contended that balance sale consideration was

agreed to be paid within three months and defendant No.1

had agreed to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance sale

consideration. The plaintiff has further specifically contended

that pursuant to execution of suit agreement, he has paid the

balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- to first defendant on

02.01.1998 under good faith and thereafter called upon the

first defendant to execute the registered sale deed.

The grievance of the plaintiff is that in spite of repeated

requests, first defendant went on postponing the transaction

and however, she did not come forward to perform her part of

contract. Therefore, plaintiff was compelled to issue two legal

notices dated 15.01.1998 and 21.01.1998 calling upon the

first defendant to perform her part of contract by executing

5

the registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 neither replied to

the legal notice nor executed the sale deed, though the

plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform her part of

contract.

The plaintiff further contended that second defendant is

no way concerned with suit schedule property, though he is

the husband of first defendant.

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in order to deprive the rights of

plaintiff and to negate the suit agreement, in collusion with

defendant Nos.3 and 4 have created a collusive document i.e.,

registered sale deed dated 07.01.1998. The plaintiff has

further pleaded that defendant Nos.3 and 4 who alleged to

have purchased the suit schedule property under the

concocted document for sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-

which is far below the price agreed between plaintiff and

defendant No.1 under the suit agreement. On 23.01.1998

when plaintiff applied for encumbrance certificate, came to

know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have executed the sale deed

dated 07.01.1998 in favour of defendant No.4 who is none

6

other than wife of defendant No.3. On these set of pleadings,

the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of

contract. The plaintiff also sought for the relief of declaration

to declare that sale deed dated 07.01.1998 as null and void

and not binding on plaintiff.

4.

On receipt of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2

did not chose to contest the proceedings. Defendant Nos.3

and 4 have filed the written statement and contest the

proceedings.

5.

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 at paragraph No.5 of the

written statement have specifically contended that defendant

No.4 has purchased the suit schedule property from first

defendant

for

valid

sale

consideration

of

Rs.50,000/-.

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have further contended that from the

date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of suit schedule property and therefore, they claim

that defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit

schedule property without notice from defendant Nos.1 and 2

for valid sale consideration.

7

6.

Based on the rival contentions, the trial co