The courts upheld the dismissal of a specific performance suit, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to substantiate claims and highlighting procedural adherence in appellate review.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 passed in R.A.No.133/2008 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the first Appellate Court), whereby the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.467/1997 by the Additional II Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. Parties are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:The original plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, for refund of advance sale consideration amount paid by the plaintiff to defendant Nos.1 to 3. As agreement of sale was executed by Late D.Nanjundappa, who is none other than the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 05.05.1993. On execution of the same, the sale consideration amount was fixed at Rs.37,000/- and the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- as advance sale consideration amount to Late D.Nanjundappa, father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. Late D.Nanjundappa had agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed.

3.1 Since the sale deed was not registered by Late D.Nanjundappa, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. But unfortunately, D.Nanjundappa died on 14.08.1993 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 being the legal representatives of Late D.Nanjundappa were requested to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 received balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,000/- on 27.11.1995. But despite receipt of the said balance sale consideration amount, defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not come forward to register the sale deed. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, it is come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule property by virtue of three different sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Despite, the plaintiff being in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants.

3.2 The defendants appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the agreement of sale alleged to be executed by their deceased father and stated that the same is fabricated and forged document. The defendants admitted the fact that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6. Defendant No.1 denied the receipt of balance sale consideration amount as alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 took up a plea that they are the bona fide purchasers for valuable sale consideration and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants stated that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside as they are the absolute owners by virtue of the registered sale deed. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

3.3 On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that D.Nanjundappa S/o Doddaiah has executed an agreement to sell dated 05.05.1993 agreeing to sell suit schedule property for Rs.37,000/- in favour of plaintiff and received Rs.18,000/- as an earnest amount?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that on the date of agreement itself said D.Nanjundappa had handed over possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants 1 to 3 have succeeded to the estate of deceased D.Nanjundappa?

4. Whether plaintiff proves that he was and he is always ready and will