JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The parties will be referred by their rank before the trial court, for convenience. 3. The appellant was the defendant before the trial court. The suit of the plaintiffs was to the effect that the defendant was the absolute owner of the suit properties. On 09.05.1990, he had agreed to sell the suit properties to the husband of plaintiff no.1 under an agreement of sale. The sale consideration was Rs.1,50,000/- and the agreement was in respect of agricultural land bearing survey no. 432/2 measuring 3 acres 21 guntas of Harohalli village, Kanakapura taluk, Bangalore Rural District. It is claimed that under the agreement, the husband of the first plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- by way of a demand draft drawn on M/S.Canara Bank, apart from having paid cash in a sum of Rs.5000/-and therefore, it was contended that defendant had received a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as advance, towards the sale price and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, in favour of the husband of the first plaintiff. Subsequently, in June 1990, the defendant is said to have approached the husband of the first plaintiff and requested that a separate sale agreement in the English language be entered into between them. Accordingly, a second agreement in respect of the same property was entered into in English, incorporating the very terms under the agreement of sale dated 09.05.1990. However, the only difference was that the period prescribed for completion of the sale transaction was five years, instead of two years, as agreed earlier. The attesting witnesses to the second agreement were also different from the witnesses to the first agreement. It is further claimed that the plaintiff's husband was put in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendant is said to have approached the husband of the first plaintiff for an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the balance sale consideration, as he was in urgent need of the same. This according to the plaintiff, was paid on 11.12.1991, to the defendant who in turn had issued a receipt in respect of such payment and it was further agreed that he would execute the sale deed on receiving the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-. This according to the plaintiff, was paid on 11.12.1991, to the defendant who in turn had issued a receipt in respect of such payment and it was further agreed that he would execute the sale deed on receiving the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-. In the month of January 1992, it is claimed by the plaintiffs that the husband of the first plaintiff demanded execution of the sale deed and that he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-but the defendant postponed the same, on one pretext or the other. And during the subsistence of the agreement, the first plaintiff's husband had died on 04.7.1993, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. That after the death of her husband, plaintiff no.1 was put in possession of the suit property and that she was paying the defendant in kind, in consideration of being permitted to cultivate the land in question, by delivering 300 bags of rice and 300 coconuts per year pending the sale transaction. The plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It was further urged that sale agreement of June 1990 was taken by the defendant on the pretext that he wanted to show it to his wife and had failed to return the same and therefore, the plaint was accompanied by a photo copy of the said document and it is in the above background that a suit was filed for specific performance of the contract. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendant who, in his written statement, contended that it was true that he was the owner of the suit property but it was denied that it was offered for sale under the agreement set up by the plaintiffs and he denied the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant and claimed that one Krishnamurthy who is said to be the husband of the first plaintiff was his servant and was helping him manage his properties. It was admitted that he received a sum of Rs.95,000/- but it was not towards any sale consideration but an amount returned by Krishnamurthy which he had received on some other account and therefore, the claim that it was towards the sale price under any agreement was utterly false and it was denied that there was a "first agreement" or the "second agreement", as sought to be contended by the plaintiffs and it was reiterated that Krishnamurthy was a mere servant during his life time and before that Krishnamurthy's father, Ramaiah, was also helping the defendant to look after the properties and he had acted as a god father to the family of Ramaiah and his sons. The relationship of the parties was throughout cordial and they never coveted any of his properties and therefore, the plaintiffs have hatched a scheme to claim the suit property under false and concocted documents. It was also contended that after the death of Krishnamurthy, Ramaiah and his other sons approached the defendant to resume management of the suit land but the defendant had insisted that accounts be taken first and the amount outstanding be settled and therefore, at the instance of certain well wishers, it was agreed that the panchayathdars named by the parties would look into the matter in detail and determine a via media as to the amounts payable. As a token of agreement before the panchayath, the defendant had affixed his signature to an agreement and it is claimed by the defendant that it is possible that after he left the place, the plaintiffs must have connived with the panchayathdars to make it seem that there was a panchayath convened in respect of the lands alleged under the agreement of sale and therefore, the entire case of the plaintiffs is a concoction of lies and falsehood and therefore, it was contended that the suit be rejected. There were additional pleadings which however were only an enlargement of each others case on the basis of which the Court below had framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that defendant has offered to sell the suit schedule properties to Krishna Murthy for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed an Agreement of Sale dated 9.5.1990 by receiving an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-agreeing to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-? 2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that defendant has offered to sell the suit schedule properties to Krishna Murthy for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and executed an Agreement of Sale dated 9.5.1990 by receiving an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-agreeing to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-? 2. Whether they further proves that the defendant has executed an 2nd agreement of sale in favour of Krishna Murthy in the month of June, 1990 in respect of the suit schedule property and put in possession of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether they further proves that on 11.12.1991 defendant received a sum of Rs.10,000/- and executed a receipt towards the balance sale consideration amount? 4. Whether they further proves that defendant has taken the original June Agreement of sale on a pretext that it is required to be shown to his wife and failed to return it? 5. Whether they further proves that Panchayath was convened on 10.10.1993 and defendant has agreed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of 1st plaintiff on 10.1.1993? 6. Whether the defendant proves that he has received Rs.95,000/- from the Krishna Murthy on account of the defendant as he was his servant? 7. Whether he further proves that the Agreement of sale and other documents relied on by the plaintiffs are the fraudulent and concocted documents? 8. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as contended in paras 1, 11, 13 and 17 of the Written Statement? 9. Whether the valuation made and Court Fee there on is not proper? 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred time? 11. Whether the defendant is entitled to the compensatory costs as claimed? 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this suit? 13. What order or decree? Additional Issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant executes further agreements on 20.8.1993 and on 23.11.1993 by admitting earlier agreement as alleged in para 11 (a) to (c) of the plaint? " The trial Court has answered issues 1 to 3, 5, 12 and additional issue in the affirmative and issue nos.4, 6 to 11 in the negative. It is this that is challenged in the present appeal. 5. " The trial Court has answered issues 1 to 3, 5, 12 and additional issue in the affirmative and issue nos.4, 6 to 11 in the negative. It is this that is challenged in the present appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, while taking this Court through the record, would seek to contend that several agreements have been set up by the plaintiffs claiming that each is consistent with the other. Firstly, he would submit that there was no need to duplicate the agreements time and again. Secondly, it is incorrect to claim that they are all consistent. He would point out that there are gross inconsistencies in the very description of the property. It is pointed out that property agreed to be sold measured 3 acres 21 guntas whereas in the subsequent agreements, the property bearing survey no.432/1 has been included which is inexplicable. Therefore, the plaintiffs not seeking to explain these inconsistencies has been completely overlooked by the Court below. Having regard to the relationship between the husband of plaintiff no.1 and the defendant, there was no warrant for selling the property in favour of the said Krishnamurthy. In any event, the very relationship having been denied it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to establish the fact that Krishnamurthy was indeed the husband of plaintiff no.1. These aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Court below. Further that Krishnamurthy had executed a Will in favour of the appellant under which he had bequeathed all his properties, including, the suit properties to the appellant and therefore, even if the sale agreements which were set up by the plaintiffs were in existence or not would not matter much, as all the properties which Krishnamurthy had acquired were bequeathed to the appellant. It is also pointed out that though the respondents had claimed that the original agreement of the year 1990 had been taken away by the present appellant, the plaintiff no.1 had inexplicably produced the same during the pendency of the suit while claiming that she had discovered the original agreement while whitewashing her house and therefore, the very allegation against the defendant was a falsehood, which again has been glossed over by the trial court. The further significant circumstance that a registered Will executed by Late Krishnamurthy having been admitted by the plaintiffs, there was no further requirement of the trial court seeking better evidence of the bequest made in favour of the appellant. Hence, the suit for specific performance ought to have been dismissed, as the lack of bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs was evident in the several circumstances that were highlighted in the written statement and in the evidence of the defendant. Including the circumstance that there was no averment that the plaintiffs did not choose to establish before the Court their readiness and willingness to complete the sale registration which was the sine qua non for the maintainability of a suit for specific performance of contract and therefore seeks that the judgment and decree of the Court below be set aside. 6. As already pointed out, the Court had framed twelve issues on the pleadings of the parties. During the course of the trial, the Court thought it fit to appoint a handwriting expert to examine the several documents that were set up and to address the admitted signatures of the present defendant -appellant with the signatures found on the several agreements of sale that were set up. The Commissioner had filed his report. The Commissioner's report was neither challenged by the plaintiffs nor the defendant and was allowed to stand. The Commissioner had submitted in his report that the signatures found on the agreements and that of the defendant were of one and the same person. This was clinching evidence to demonstrate that the agreements had been executed by the defendant. That has not been questioned or challenged by the defendant. Further, it was also admitted by the defendant that Krishnamurthy had paid a sum of Rs.95,000/- to the defendant which according to the plaintiffs was part of the sale price though the defendant admitted payment of the same, he sought to contend that it was paid on some other account and was not towards the sale price. The defendant did not choose to furnish the details as to the transaction in respect of which such amount was paid. The defendant did not choose to furnish the details as to the transaction in respect of which such amount was paid. Further, insofar as the Will having been executed by Krishnamurthy in favour of the defendant is concerned, since the defendant did not choose to prove the Will in the manner required in law, the Court below has ignored and has proceeded on the footing that the plaintiffs have established their case insofar as the agreements of sale are concerned, notwithstanding, the inconsistencies, if any, in the said agreements. Insofar as the contention that the plaintiffs had not proved their readiness and willingness is not a ground raised in the present appeal and the Court below having decreed the suit for specific performance would not warrant any interference, as the findings are based on evidence that was found to be sound and acceptable in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.