Unregistered oral agreements for sale of property are unenforceable and cannot be claimed for specific performance.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Prasanna V.R, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the decree of dismissal of the suit for specific performance in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property) in O.S.No.98/2006 confirming in R.A.No.30/2019.

Schedule 'A': Description of the plaint immovable property

Non-agricultural house site property situated in No.76 Badagabettu Village of Udupi Taluk and in Bailoor Ward (Formerly Volakad Ward) of Udupi City Municipality bearing S.No.93/11B (93/11B1p-1 as per the computerized RTC) - Punja (middle-western portion) measuring about 52 cents and coming within the following Boundaries.

Boundaries:

East : Voni or lane

South : Plot of Sri Y.C.S. Hegde, Advocate, Udupi

West : Road,

North : Land of Alevoor Kuppanna Bhat (Since deceased)

N.B.: The above property with a tilted residential building bearing Udupi Municipal D.No.6- 1-14, about 25 coconut trees and plants, 4 mango trees, 6 jack fruit trees, 2 young teakwood trees, a well with a electric pump set installed to it, rights of way water and other easements and all other appurtenances thereto with mud compound walls and an iron gate with 2 stone pillars on the western wall."

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell in respect of aforesaid suit property by contending that defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff's father namely Haradi Sridhar Pai.

3.2. The plaintiffs are the owners of 2/3^rd undivided share in Moolageni in plaint 'A' schedule property. They agreed to purchase the remaining 1/3^rd share of the defendant by oral agreement and same was denied by the defendant and therefore sought for specific enforcement.

4. Suit on due contest came to be dismissed.

5. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.30/2019 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, re-appreciated the material on record on legal and factual aspects and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.20 to 24 as under:

"20. PW2 and PW3 are the two witnesses have deposed that they accompanied the PW1 to Chennai and they are all went to the house of defendant and sale talk was held and the defendant agreed to sell the 1/3 share in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration amount of Ra.10,00,000/-. During the cross examination he has stated that on 25.06.2006 when they went to the house of Vittal Pai he come to know that he is suffering from ill health and hence they immediately return. PW3 in his cross examination it has come on record that they went the house of the defendant.

21. DW1 is the husband of the defendant No.1(c), has denied the oral agreement said to have been held between the deceased defendant and the plaintiffs. He denied the suggestions that on 24.06.2006 PW1 to 3 visited the house of deceased defendant No.1 and sale talk took place and the oral agreement was entered in.

22. The plaintiffs have produced certified copy of registered deed of family agreement marked at Ex.P1, copy of the registered release deed dated 26.10.1967 marked at Ex.P2. Copy of the sale deed dated 27.07.1973 marked at Ex.P3, copy of release deed dated 23.12.1985 marked at Ex.P4. However, there is no dispute regarding the rights of the parties to the suit with regard to the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 never denied the 2/3 share of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. His content