The court upheld the decree for specific performance, affirming the doctrine of lis pendens and ensuring the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract was duly recognized.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015, passed in R.A.No.462/2012 by the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru and the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.325/2005 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.5, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and other respondents were other defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of the specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants Nos.1 to 4 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and they agreed to sell the suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs.2,55,000/-. Accordingly, the defendants received Rs.25,000/- as an advance consideration amount on 24.12.2004. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration amount to be paid within four months from the date of execution of the sale agreement and the defendants shall get the title deed about the suit schedule property from MUDA, Mysore and then to convey the suit schedule property by receiving the balance consideration amount in favour of plaintiff. Ever since the date of execution of the sale agreement, the plaintiff always has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendant Nos.1 to 4 went on postponing to perform their part of the contract. By the virtue of the non-performance of the contract, the plaintiff has been put into great hardship and inconvenience. The plaintiff, to prove that the plaintiff always has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, got issued a legal notice on 28.03.2005 calling upon defendant Nos.1 to 4 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to execute the registered sale deed. The said notice was served on defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.4 avoided to receive the same. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not perform their part of the contract. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff filed an application to implead defendant No.5, and the said application was allowed. Defendant No.5 was impleaded as a purchaser during the pendency of the suit.

3.2. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 denied the execution of the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and receiving of advance sale consideration amount. It is contended that defendant No.1 had orally agreed to sell the suit property in favour of one Smt. Mamata on 10.02.2004. In terms of said oral agreement, they wanted the title deed from MUDA, hence, they approached the plaintiff, who was a Police Constable and appraised regarding the oral agreement with defendant No.5- Smt. Mamatha, and his efforts to get the title deeds from MUDA to execute the sale deed in favour of Smt. Mamatha. The plaintiff promised and assured the defendant No.1 to get the title deed from MUDA at the earliest, as the concerned officials of the MUDA are known to him very well. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 were asked to put their thumb impressions and hence, defendant No.1 got the signatures of his other brothers on the papers supplied by the plaintiff. The plainti