Judgment :- (RSA filed U/S.100 CPC against the judgment dated 13.03.02 passed in RA No.24/00 on the file of the district judge, Gadag, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.7.95 passed in OS No.63/92 on the file of the civil judge, Gadag.) The appellant/defendant has come up with this second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S.No.63/1992 which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 13.3.2002 passed by the District Judge, Gadag in R.A.No.24/2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court seeking for the relief of specific performance of contract dated 31-3-1990 and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property bearing TMC No.412 situated at Ward No.4, Gajendragad town, Ron Taluk. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit property which is consisting of two shops and zinc sheet shed and open space behind them with compound for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and receive Rs.1,20,000/- towards earnest money and executed agreement of sale Ex.P.1 on 30-3-1990. Thereafter the defendant executed registered sale deed Ex.P.4 in respect of southern half portion of the said property for a sum of Rs.95,000/- on 9-8-1990. The defendant thereafter collected from plaintiff now and then the entire balance amount of Rs.60,000/- in respect of original agreement of sale and executed document Ex.P5 dated 28-5-1991 and gave possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is running cement business in the suit property; that the defendant obstructed with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and had advertised to sell the same to third parties. That the plaintiff also issued a public notice dated 10-8-1992 cautioning the public not to purchase the suit property. He also issued legal notice to the defendant dated 13-8-1992 to execute a sale deed in respect of suit property in his favour. In suite of receipt of notice, defendant failed to comply the same nor gave any reply. That the plaintiff also issued a public notice dated 10-8-1992 cautioning the public not to purchase the suit property. He also issued legal notice to the defendant dated 13-8-1992 to execute a sale deed in respect of suit property in his favour. In suite of receipt of notice, defendant failed to comply the same nor gave any reply. That he has paid the entire sale consideration amount to the defendant and has performed his part of contract and he is ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Hence he filed the suit. 4. On appearance before trial Court, defendant filed written statement contending that agreement of sale dated 30-3-1990 is only a security deed for the loan borrowed by him from the plaintiff and was not intended to acted upon and the sale deed dated 9-8-1989 was also executed as a security for the amount borrowed; that the actual possession of the suit property was not given to the plaintiff; that on 28-5-1991 the plaintiff paid some amount to defendant and obtained his signature on some papers saying that they are security for the amount paid. That the suit property is in his possession and he is enjoying the same. That he is residing in the first floor of the suit premises and he has no intention to sell the same; that he has no other property for his residence; that due to financial difficulties, he executed the alleged agreement of sale. That the suit property values more than Rs.10 lakh, as such, if the specific performance is ordered, he will be put to great hardship and injury. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed in all, six issues. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined three more witness as P.Ws.2 to 4 and documents Exs.P-1 came to be marked. On the other hard, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined another witness as D.W.2. However, no documents were marked on his behalf. The trial Court, after going through the entire material placed before it, decreed the suit of plaintiff directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed. On the other hard, defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined another witness as D.W.2. However, no documents were marked on his behalf. The trial Court, after going through the entire material placed before it, decreed the suit of plaintiff directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed. Being aggrieved, defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District judge, Gadag in R.A.No.2/2000 wherein the learned District Judge after hearing the counsel for parties dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence this appeal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 7. According to appellant, the agreement Ex.P.1 dated 30.3.1990 is in respect of entire property bearing TMC – 412/2 consisting of two sheds with zinc sheets and an open space with compound for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-; that subsequently sale deed Ex.P4 came to be executed in respect of southern half portion of the suit property which resulted in termination of agreement of sale Ex.P.1 dated 30-3-1990. As such, there is no obligation on his part to act further under the said agreement of sale Ex.P-1. That the plaintiff is a professional money lender and that since the defendant is in need of money for his domestic and business purpose, he borrowed money from plaintiff by executing the documents as demanded by the plaintiff. That the signature found on document Ex.P-5/ consent deed, is not his signature and the same has been forged by the plaintiff, hence he has filed P.C.168/2000 in this regard against the plaintiff. That he has also filed O.S. No.100/1995 against the plaintiff for re-conveyance of suit property by executing deed of reconveyance. It is further case of the appellant-defendant that possession of property is not given to plaintiff at the time of agreement of sale and there is no recital to this effect in the same. That the plaintiff has violated the terms of agreement of sale by forging his signature on Ex.P-5. It is further case of the appellant-defendant that possession of property is not given to plaintiff at the time of agreement of sale and there is no recital to this effect in the same. That the plaintiff has violated the terms of agreement of sale by forging his signature on Ex.P-5. That he has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before the lower appellate Court by producing 34 documents which were relevant to prove his case that plaintiff is a money lender and is lending money to others and he forces the persons taking money from him to execute documents styled as agreement of sale or sale deed where infact the same are only security deeds. However, the lower appellate Court did not made even reference of the said document in its judgment. That several suits have been filed by the plaintiff against many persons seeking for the similar reliefs. The lower appellate Court erred in not allowing his application seeking for production of additional evidence. It is further contended that the P.W.2. is interested witness, who was working under plaintiff, further, P.W.3 & 4 are belong to community of plaintiff and are close relatives of plaintiff, as such, the courts below ought not to have relied on their evidence to come to the conclusion that appellant has executed the documents Exs.P-1 & 5. Hence it is prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 8. Substantial questions of law that are raised in this appeal are: “(1) Whether the Courts below are right in exercising the discretionary power under Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act and granting decree for specific performance without properly considering the documentary evidence; and (2) Whether the reasons assigned by them in the impugned judgments are legal and valid in law? 9. Admittedly, defendant was the owner of the suit property and he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 30-3-1990 with the plaintiff in respect of the same for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as per Ex.P1, further also executed a sale deed Ex.P4 dated 9-8-1990 in respect of the southern half portion of the suit property for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant further collected the remaining consideration of Rs.60,000/-but failed to execute sale deed in respect of remaining half portion of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant further collected the remaining consideration of Rs.60,000/-but failed to execute sale deed in respect of remaining half portion of the suit property. Instead, made attempts to sell the property to others as such, he was constrained to file the suit before the trial Court. On the other hand, though the defendant did not dispute the execution of said agreement of sale/Ex.P.1, according to him, the same is only a security deed which was not intended to be acted upon and further the sale deed dated 9-8-1990 is also executed as security for the amount borrowed by him from plaintiff. The Courts below after considering the evidence of plaintiff’s witness have held that Ex.P-1 is the agreement of sale executed by defendant after receipt of consideration. Moreover Ex.P.1 is a registered document which carries authenticity and correctness of the contents of the same. Further, P.W.4 who is an attestor to Ex.P1/ agreement of sale, supported the case of plaintiff. Defendant has failed to prove that Ex.P-1 is only a security deed. Though appellant examined D.W.2 to show that agreement of sale/Ex.P.1 was written as security for loan he borrowed from plaintiff, he failed to substantiate the same by producing corroborative evidence. During the cross examination, it is elicited from the mouth of D.W.2 that he was working for the appellant as his family carpenter. Further, though he stated that he was present at the time of writing of Ex.P.1, he has not signed the same as attestor and according to him since, two other attesting witnesses have already signed the document he was told not to sign it. He further states that plaintiff collected from appellant two signed blank stamp papers. However the evidence of D.W.2 has been rightly not believed by the courts below. Moreover, there is no pleading as such to the effect that appellant signed blank stamp papers at the instance of plaintiff. There is no other material evidence placed on record by the appellant to show that he has not executed Ex.P.1. As such, both the Courts below were right in believing Ex.P-1. 10. Further according to plaintiff, defendant had also executed Ex.P-5 – consent deed, dated 28-5-1991 acknowledging the receipt of full consideration amount under agreement of sale deed/Ex.P-1, agreeing to execute the sale deed in respect of remaining portion of the suit property whenever called upon by the plaintiff. As such, both the Courts below were right in believing Ex.P-1. 10. Further according to plaintiff, defendant had also executed Ex.P-5 – consent deed, dated 28-5-1991 acknowledging the receipt of full consideration amount under agreement of sale deed/Ex.P-1, agreeing to execute the sale deed in respect of remaining portion of the suit property whenever called upon by the plaintiff. However, this document has been seriously disputed by the defendant. To prove the execution of Ex.P-5, the plaintiff examined P.W.2. who is the scribe of the said document, further, P.W.3 &4 are the attestors to the said document. Though, they have been cross examined by the defendant, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discredit their evidence. Of course, it is argued by counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 & 2 are interested witnesses and P.W.2 was working under plaintiff and P.Ws 3 & 4 are relatives of plaintiff. Thus, prayed that their evidence should not be considered. However, there is no suggestion put to plaintiff’s witnesses in this regard during their cross examination. For the first time, the appellant has come up with the above theory. In the absence of pleadings or evidence in this regard, the same cannot be considered. Of course appellant has filed P.C.No.168/2000 against the plaintiff for forging his signature on Ex.P.5, but the same cannot be a conclusive proof to disbelieve Ex.P.5 and its valid execution by appellant, since the said complaint has been filed subsequent to filing of the suit by the plaintiff which is a afterthought. The circumstances involved in the case and the plaintiff’s evidence compel me to be hold that appellant himself executed Ex.P.5. 11. The defendant has not disputed the execution of sale deed Ex.P-4 in respect of southern half portion of the suit property and mutation was effected in this behalf as per Ex.P.3. As such, the documents Exs.P-1, 4 & 5 has been proved by the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to show the contrary before the Court. 12. Of course, under Ex.P-1 possession of the suit property was not handed over to the plaintiff, however, from the recitals of Ex.P-5 it is clear that on executing the said document, possession of the suit property was handed over to plaintiff. Though it is extensively contended by appellant before trial Court that he is in possession of the suit property but the document Ex.P.5 entirely destroys his case. Though it is extensively contended by appellant before trial Court that he is in possession of the suit property but the document Ex.P.5 entirely destroys his case. The trial Court even at the early stage of the proceedings, considering the materials placed before it, granted an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of suit schedule property. The said order has not been set aside or challenged by the defendant. As such, even the appellant admits possession of plaintiff over the suit property. 13. Further, according to plaintiff, even after receipt of entire sale consideration amount, appellant failed to execute sale deed in his favour. On the other hand, he tried to dispose of the suit property in favour of third parties and in this regard, he had also issued an advertisement dated 11/08/1992 in “Navodaya” Kannada daily news paper/Ex.P7, calling upon the general public to purchase the suit property. Of course, it is contended that apart from the suit property, appellant has no other properties as such, he had no intention to alienate the suit property. But from the documents, it is clear that advertisement Ex.P7 has been issued by appellant himself calling the public to purchase the suit property in favour of third parties. The same has not been disputed. As such, the intention of the appellant to part away the suit property in favour of third parties is clear. Further, though it is contended that he has no other property except the suit property, the plaintiffs were able to prove before Court that appellant is in possession of other land and house property at his native place and he is residing therein. 14. Of course, it is contended that the consideration shown in Ex.P-1 is very meager, as such, if he sell away the property for the agreed amount as shown in Ex.P.1, appellant would be put to great hardship and inconvenience. However, in view of the undisputed facts that the defendant executed Exs.P-1, 2 & 5, the question of insufficiency of consideration does not arise and the same is not a ground to decline the prayer of plaintiff to order for specific performance of agreement Ex.P-1. However, in view of the undisputed facts that the defendant executed Exs.P-1, 2 & 5, the question of insufficiency of consideration does not arise and the same is not a ground to decline the prayer of plaintiff to order for specific performance of agreement Ex.P-1. Of course, it is extensively argued before me that since Ex.P-4 came to be executed, any obligation under Ex.P-1 gets terminated and there is no obligation on appellant to act further in furtherance of Ex.P-1. Considering Ex.P-5 which is subsequent to execution of Ex.P-4, I am of the opinion that by executing Ex.P-5, the appellant binds himself to complete the sale transaction in accordance with Ex.P-1, though he had executed Ex.P-4 in respect of half portion of the suit property. It is also contended that the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit in respect of the entire suit property, though, there is already a sale deed/Ex.P4 executed by appellant in favour of plaintiff in respect of half portion of suit property. Since appellant has already executed sale deed Ex.P4 in respect of Southern half portion of suit property, he should execute the sale deed only in respect of another half portion of suit property in furtherance of agreement entered between them as per Ex.P-1. It is not so, that because, the suit is decreed, appellant has to execute the sale deed in respect of entire suit property, he should execute the sale deed only in respect of remaining half portion of suit property, excluding the property covered under Ex.P.4 in respect of which he had already executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff. 15. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he had completed his obligations under Ex.P-1, as such, considering the fact, whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under Ex.P.1 does not arise and it was for the appellant to complete the transaction. Thus, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff which has been affirmed by the learned district judge. 16. Of course, appellant has produced some documents along with application before the lower appellate Court, seeking permission of the court to produce the same in support of his case. Unfortunately, the same have not found a place in the order passed by the lower appellate Court. I have perused the documents filed. 16. Of course, appellant has produced some documents along with application before the lower appellate Court, seeking permission of the court to produce the same in support of his case. Unfortunately, the same have not found a place in the order passed by the lower appellate Court. I have perused the documents filed. Those documents have been filed to show that plaintiff is a money lender and certain similar suits were filed by him against some persons. Considering the nature of documents produced, I am of the opinion, that the same will not affect the case of the plaintiff in any way as a transaction between the plaintiff and defendant is distinct from what are all the transactions taken place in respect of document sought to be produced by the appellant. Moreover, the documents sought to be produced have no reference before the trial Court. Since there is no pleadings or evidence which form a base for production of documents. I do not find any good grounds to receive the same on record in this appeal. Power under Order 41 Rule 121 CPC should ordinarily be exercised only in exceptional case, to avoid failure of justice. In the instant case, I do not find any such grounds to accept the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellant, since the same have no bearing on the decision of the case. 17. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any illegality or incorrectness in the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned District Judge. Hence this appeal fails and stands dismissed with costs.