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

- 4 -

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

- 5 -

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

- 6 -

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 know that it got the registered sale deed from

defendant no.2. Defendant nos.1 and 3 to 6 in collusion with

one another fabricated the documents to project that the

general power of attorney deed executed by defendant no.1

in favour of Sri Vithal Dharmanna Sapare was cancelled, but

def