THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 IF THE C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.101/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1. Defendant No.1 represented by defendant No. 6 in O.S. No. 101/2007 is impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010 on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract, i.e., the agreement for sale, dated 14.02.2006 and directing defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.6 to execute the registered sale deed within three months from the date of the order, by receiving the balance consideration amount which is already deposited before the Court.

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

3. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 101/2007 against defendant nos.1 and 2 seeking specific performance of contract, i.e., the agreement dated 18.02.2006 and to direct defendant no.1 to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property bearing plot no. 34 comprised in R.S. No. 603-1+2 of Unkal village measuring 70' x 100' formed by the Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority (for short 'HDUDA'), with the boundaries mentioned therein.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the schedule property was allotted in favour of defendant No.1 and lease cum sale agreement was executed on 04.07.1988 by defendant No.2. The possession of the plot was handed over in favour of defendant no.1 on 08.08.1988. The General power of attorney holder of defendant no.1 entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 14.02.2006 agreeing to sell the schedule property for a total consideration amount of Rs.14 lakhs. He received advance amount of Rs.25,000/- through the bank demand draft bearing no. 134758. The defendant agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after getting the sale deed executed in its favour by defendant no.2. The balance consideration amount of Rs.13,75,000/- was decided to be paid at the time of executing the sale deed.

5. It is contended that since the defendant has not completed his work to get the sale deed registered from defendant No.2, the plaintiff was reminding the defendant in that regard. It was brought to the notice of the plaintiff that a registered sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant no.2. Finally, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice calling upon defendant No.1 and its partners to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance consideration amount. Defendants were not having any intention to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a paper publication regarding the agreement entered into in his favour in Samyukta Karnataka daily newspaper dated 04.11.2006 cautioning the general public not to transact with defendant no.1 in respect of the schedule property.

6. It is contended that since defendant No.1 was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed, serious doubt arose about its conduct and intention. Finally, the plaintiff demanded specific performance of the contract by issuing legal notice dated 03.11.2006 calling upon the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed. The same was served on them. Since the defendant was not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the cause of action for the suit arose and the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the contract.

7. During the pendency of the suit original plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendant nos.3 to 6 were impleaded. As per the amended plaint, the plaintiff contended that after institution of the suit, he enquired about the conduct of defendant no.1 and came to