JUDGMENT

This is a suit for specific performance.

2.Plaintiff's case is that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1,31,00,000/-. The agreement for sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on 09.06.2011. The time for completion of sale is six months. The defendants have to clear the pending loan with the South Indian Bank, City Branch, Bangalore–53 within a period of six months and hand over the original documents before the registration of sale. An advance of Rs.35,00,000/- was paid. The plaintiff was put in possession of two shop portions in the property. The defendants promised to negotiate with the bank for one time settlement to enable the transaction to go through. The plaintiff tendered a payment of Rs.60,00,000/- on behalf of the defendants to the bank. However, the bank declined to receive the same stating that the defendants have to comply with certain conditions. As per the arrangement between the defendants and the bank, Rs.75,00,000/- was to be paid by the defendants, after taking into account the sale proceeds of another property at Jayanagar, Bangalore. At the request of the defendants, the plaintiff provided an additional sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to enable them to settle with the bank. The plaintiff was promised that the documents would be obtained from the bank and handed over to him. Since that was not happening, he issued a notice dated 06.01.2012, calling upon the defendants to hand over the documents. During December 2011, defendants handed over one more portion of the suit property and permitted the plaintiff to let out to a person of his choice, in view of the delay caused. The defendants issued notice dated 03.02.2012 making wholly false and untenable allegations. Therefore, a suitable reply dated 16.02.2012 was sent. On 22.08.2012, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour or his nominee. The defendants issued a reply dated 07.09.2012 reiterating their earlier stand and refusing to comply with the terms of the agreement. Therefore the suit.

3.The case of the defendants 1 and 2 in brief is as follows:

The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the wife, son and daughter of Mr.D.T.Sreenivas. The suit property was in the name of Mrs.Subbarathinamma, the mother of the 1st defendant and grand mother of the 2 & 3 defendant. Mrs.Subbarathinamma settled the property in favour of the 1st defendant on 12.10.1971. The property was managed by Mr.D.T.Sreenivas, husband of the 1st defendant. In the year 2000, 3rd defendant executed a power of attorney in favour of her mother granting her full authority to deal with the property in dispute. To develop the business, loans were taken on behalf of M/s.Sudha and Co., by providing the property as security with South India Bank Ltd. The plaintiff was introduced to Mr.D.T.Sreenivas through a common friend and he agreed to purchase the property after scrutinising the documents. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale based on the promises/assurances given by the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions in the agreement. As per the agreement, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to South India Bank Ltd. for the loan taken by M/s.Sudha and Co. and Rs.3,50,000/- as cash to the defendants instead of Rs.5,00,000/-. The plaintiff also paid Rs.25,00,000/- to the first defendant's husband for settling the loan and it was paid to South India Bank Limited. Totally, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.58,50,000/-. The plaintiff started taking undue advantage over the property and sought rents from the tenants. The plaintiff has to pay Rs.1,31,00,000/- within a period of six months, but he paid only Rs.58,50,000/-. It was orally agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will be in possession of two shops and the defendants will retain the remaining shops and would not change the tenants in the property in dispute. However, the plaintiff transferred