JUDGMENT S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. These two appeals are arising out of the common judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010, passed in R.A. Nos. 2/2007 and 3/2007, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri, wherein the judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 101/2004 for the relief of specific performance is confirmed by dismissing R.A. No. 3/2007 and rejection of the suit for the relief of injunction filed by the appellants herein is dismissed in confirming the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 81/2004, by dismissing R.A. No. 2/2007. 2. The brief facts leading to these two second appeals are as under: The appellant in RSA. No. 5368/2010 is defendant in OS. No. 101/2004 filed for the relief of specific performance of land bearing Sy. No. 234/1 + 2/1 of Hulagur village measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. The appellants in RSA. No. 5369/2010 are plaintiffs in OS. No. 81/2004 filed for the relief of permanent injunction against plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004, alleging threat to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., the land bearing Sy. No. 234/1+2/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Hulagur village, Shiggaon Taluka. 3. The admitted facts are that, on 18.05.1991 one Virappa Pattanashetty, 9th respondent in RSA. No. 5369/2010, who is also the first defendant in OS. No. 101/2004 entered into an agreement with one Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni, sister of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 7 in OS. No. 101/2004 and also sister of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the said suit, for sale of suit schedule property, which is common in both suits. The agreement dated 18.05.1991 was executed by Virappa Pattanashetty for valuable consideration of Rs. 31,000/-. At that time, he received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni agreeing to execute the sale deed in her favour as and when he is called upon to do so by receiving balance sale consideration. It is necessary to mention that no time frame was fixed for payment of balance sale consideration and it was stated that as and when the purchaser call upon the vendor, he will execute the sale deed. It is seen that subsequent to agreement of sale, purchaser Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni died on 27.05.1995. It is necessary to mention that no time frame was fixed for payment of balance sale consideration and it was stated that as and when the purchaser call upon the vendor, he will execute the sale deed. It is seen that subsequent to agreement of sale, purchaser Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni died on 27.05.1995. Thereafter the land continued to be under the cultivation and enjoyment of Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni's parents, brothers and sisters. 4. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2002, a suit was filed by the wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty in OS. No. 31/2002 for the relief of partition of the properties standing in the name of Virappa Pattanashetty and seeking a share for themselves. Admittedly, the said suit was not contested. Immediately, after the suit was filed, a compromise was entered into between the plaintiffs i.e., wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty and himself as sole defendant in the said suit. In the compromise petition, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Virappa Pattanashetty's wife and children. The filing of suit in OS. No. 31/2002 for partition was without intimation to the legal heirs of the agreement holder-late Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni. Hence, they were not aware of the family agreement which was entered into between Virappa Pattanashetty and his wife and children behind their back in the aforesaid suit. 5. In the year 2004, the wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty filed a suit in OS. No. 81/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction against some of the legal heirs of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni alleging that they are disturbing possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by Smt. Sujata wife of Virappa Pattanashetty. In the said suit, summons were issued to the defendants i.e., legal representatives of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni. On coming to know about the suit for injunction filed by the wife of Virappa Pattanashetty in OS. No. 81/2004 against the legal representatives of Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni, they filed a suit in OS. No. 101/2004 against the wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty, for the relief of specific performance based on agreement of sale dated 18.05.1991. 6. In both suits, written statements were filed by the parties opposing the said suits. Separate issues were framed in both the suits and thereafter, they were clubbed together and taken up for common trial. No. 101/2004 against the wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty, for the relief of specific performance based on agreement of sale dated 18.05.1991. 6. In both suits, written statements were filed by the parties opposing the said suits. Separate issues were framed in both the suits and thereafter, they were clubbed together and taken up for common trial. In the said proceedings, evidence was recorded in 'P' series by plaintiffs in OS. No. 81/2004 and defendants in OS. No. 101/2004. So far as the evidence of defendants in OS. No. 81/2004, who are plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004, same was recorded in common under 'D' series. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the wife of Virappa Pattanashetty i.e., Smt. Sujata in OS. No. 81/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction and decreed the suit in OS. No. 101/2004 filed by the parents, brothers and sister of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni for the relief of specific performance was allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in both suits, the plaintiff in OS. No. 81/2005 filed two appeals, one in RA. No. 2/2007 impugning the judgment and decree in OS. No. 81/2004, suit filed for permanent injunction and another appeal in RA. No. 3/2007 impugning the decree for specific performance passed in OS. No. 101/2004 filed by the legal representatives of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni. After clubbing both appeals together, the lower appellate court heard and disposed of both appeals in common judgment, dated 18.02.2010 in dismissing the appeals filed by Sujata and others. 8. As against concurrent findings in both suits, the present Regular Second Appeals are filed in RSA. Nos. 5368/2010 and 5369/2010. RSA.5368/2010 is filed impugning the concurrent judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 81/2004 and RA. No. 2/2007, whereas RSA. No. 5369/2010 is concerned, it is impugning the judgment and decree of specific performance in OS. No. 101/2004 and the same being confirmed in RA. No. 3/2007. These two appeals have come up today for admission. 9. 5368/2010 and 5369/2010. RSA.5368/2010 is filed impugning the concurrent judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 81/2004 and RA. No. 2/2007, whereas RSA. No. 5369/2010 is concerned, it is impugning the judgment and decree of specific performance in OS. No. 101/2004 and the same being confirmed in RA. No. 3/2007. These two appeals have come up today for admission. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants tried to substantiate that these appeals are to be admitted for the reason that the findings of both the courts below in deciding the suits filed for permanent injunction and as well as specific performance is concerned, the material evidence placed on record is not properly appreciated and law of limitation is ignored. In the court below, while issues were framed placing burden of proving readiness and willingness on the legal representatives of agreement holder, the trial court and lower appellate court have given erroneous finding. The readiness and willingness is taken as proved by the plaintiffs in the absence of any evidence being let in independently on the said issue. While doing so, the provisions of Sections 16(c) and 20 of Specific Performance Act are also not looked in to considering the fact that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and the only piece of land available to the family of Virappa Pattanashetty i.e., defendants in the suit for specific performance. Therefore, granting of the relief of specific performance would adversely affect the life of the said family, which is not taken into consideration and discretion is not properly exercised as required under Section 20 of Specific Performance Act. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, perused the judgments of both the courts below in both the suits i.e., the suit in OS. No. 81/2004 for the relief of permanent injunction filed by the wife of Virappa Pattanashetty and also the suit in OS. No. 101/2004 filed by the legal heirs of Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni seeking specific performance. In these proceedings, undisputed point is that, the agreement of sale is dated 18.05.1991 executed by Virappa Pattanashetty in favour of Vijayalaxmi. It is further not in dispute that the said agreement of sale is for sale of land bearing RS. No. 234/1+2/1 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Hulagur village, Shiggaon taluk. Sale consideration agreed is in a sum of Rs. It is further not in dispute that the said agreement of sale is for sale of land bearing RS. No. 234/1+2/1 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated at Hulagur village, Shiggaon taluk. Sale consideration agreed is in a sum of Rs. 31,000/- and on the date of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid and Rs. 11,000/- was required to be paid as and when the vendor executes the deed in favour of the agreement holder. 11. It is further not in dispute that on 27.05.1995 the agreement holder Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni died leaving her parents and brothers and sisters who are plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 5 to 6 in OS. No. 101/2004 as her legal heirs. It is also not in dispute that under the agreement of sale, possession of suit land was delivered to Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni in part performance of the agreement and in compliance of Section 53(a) of Transfer of Property Act, it has continued in the possession of the plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 even after the death of agreement holder, Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni. 12. In this background, if the litigation is analyzed, it is seen that suit in OS. No. 81/2004 is a frivolous suit. It is subsequent to the judgment and decree said to have passed in OS. No. 31/2002 filed by wife and children of Virappa Pattanashetty against him for the relief of partition. On going through the judgment passed in OS. No. 31/2002, it is clearly seen that there are several allegations made against Virappa Pattanashetty as if he is addicted to bad vices and not being responsible in taking care of his wife and children. However, surprisingly, the said suit is not contested by sole defendant Virappa Pattanashetty. Immediately after the suit is filed, despite the fact that serious allegations are made against him, without even contesting the same, he enters in to a settlement with plaintiffs therein i.e., his wife and children and agreed for compromise decree in allotting the property, which is the subject matter of agreement of sale dated 18.05.1991 to the share of Virappa Pattanashetty's wife and children, plaintiffs in said suit. 13. Based on the said decree, the suit in OS. No. 81/2004 is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. 13. Based on the said decree, the suit in OS. No. 81/2004 is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. Admittedly, Virappa Pattanashetty delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the aforesaid Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni on 18.05.1991, which is in cultivation and enjoyment of plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 5 and 6 in OS. No. 101/2004. In respect of the suit land plaintiff in OS. No. 81/2004 sought decree of permanent injunction against legal representatives of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni without explaining how they can substantiate their possession as against the admitted delivery of possession of same land under agreement of sale dated 18.05.1991. In the common evidence, which is recorded in both suits, it is clearly seen that the suit in OS. No. 31/2002 is a make believe suit to get the property in question released from the clutches of the agreement of sale on 18.05.1991. In the suit in OS. No. 101/2004 several documents were produced, which would show that plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 had constantly requested Virappa Pattanashetty for executing the sale deed of suit schedule property in their favour. It can be seen in Exs.P10 to P14, which documents have come in place due to complaint lodged by Virappa Pattanashetty's son against the plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004. With the aforesaid documents available on record, it is clearly seen that there was an attempt on the part of plaintiff to seek specific performance, which is not properly responded to by Sri Virappa Pattanashetty. 14. It is seen that thereafter the family members of Virappa Pattanashetty clandestinely decided to get rid of the agreement of sale dated 18.05.1991 by entering into a compromise in OS. No. 31/2002. In that view of the matter, finding of both the courts below in holding that the plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 established that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract is just and proper. In the light of aforesaid observations, the ground urged that Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act is not complied also cannot be accepted since the legal heirs of deceased Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni have on more than one occasion called upon the vendor to complete the sale transaction. The appellants also have not made out any ground to substantiate that the courts below have not exercised the discretion as provided under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. 15. The appellants also have not made out any ground to substantiate that the courts below have not exercised the discretion as provided under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellants in support of his case relied upon the judgment the following judgments: 1. Bal Krishna and Anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead by L.Rs. and Ors. reported in 2008 SCW 2467; 2. N.K. Giriraja Shetty Vs. N.K. Parthasarathy settee and ors. reported in 2006(3) AIR KAR R 136 (DB); 3. Azar Sultana Vs. B. Rajamani and Ors., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2789; 4. Rameshwar Prasad (D) by L.Rs. vs. Basanti Lal, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2708; 5. H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 715; 6. Aniglase Yohnnam Vs. Ramlatha and others reported in 2005 SCW 4789; and 7. Man Kaur Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in 2010 SCW 6198. Though all these judgments are relied upon to show that there is no compliance under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act and the courts below not exercising the discretion properly as contemplated under Section 20 of the said Act, the same cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the facts being totally different, in the background of the peculiar facts, if the aforesaid judgments are looked in to, it is seen that the pleading, oral and documentary evidence disclose innumerable attempts on the part of the agreement holders to get the sale deed executed from the date of agreement in 1991 till filing of suit for specific performance in 2009. 16. So far as exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, it is seen one of the defendants i.e., the son of vendor Virappa Pattanashetty, is an officer in Indian Army, his mother and father are residing along with him in the place of his posting. Admittedly, since 1991 from the date of agreement, the possession of the suit land was with Vijayalaxmi Kulkarni, agreement holder and thereafter with her legal heirs. Thereafter since past 20 years plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 have been carrying out the agricultural activity. Therefore, to say that the hardship would be caused to defendants in OS. No. 101/2004 is without any basis. Thereafter since past 20 years plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 have been carrying out the agricultural activity. Therefore, to say that the hardship would be caused to defendants in OS. No. 101/2004 is without any basis. In fact, in the written statement filed in the original suit, though they have stated that they are dependent for their survival on the suit property which is the only property available for the benefit of their family, they have failed to establish the same by adducing evidence in support of the same. On the contrary, it is seen that all the defendants are happily living with the children who are well settled in their job outside the place where the suit schedule property is located. In the suit OS. No. 101/2004 it is contended that suit is filed beyond the period of limitation. Though it was pleaded as defence, the defendants have miserably failed to establish that the suit for specific performance is filed beyond the period of limitation. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below have rightly analyzed the right of the plaintiffs in OS. No. 101/2004 for the relief of specific performance. The facts of the case on hand when compared with the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the appellants, it would not enure to the benefit of appellants in trying to assail the concurrent findings of both the courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance and denying the relief of permanent injunction in favour of Virappa Pattanashetty's wife, who is seeking the same by virtue of decree obtained in connivance with her husband by filing fraudulent suit in OS. No. 31/2002. 17. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court find that no grounds are made out by the appellants to admit these regular second appeals, inasmuch as, no substantial question of law arise for consideration in these two appeals. While dismissing these appeals, this Court place on record valuable assistance rendered by the learned Counsel Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi. 18. Accordingly, these two appeals are hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in OS. No. 81/2004 and 101/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Shiggaon, confirmed in RA. Nos. 2/2007 and 3/2007 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri is hereby confirmed. Registry to draw up the decree accordingly.