JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 70 of 2003 has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R. A. No. 73 of 2007 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, dated 5-2-2008, by which, the judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Kolar, dated 21-6-2007 has been set aside by allowing the appeal holding the that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance. Secondly, the defendant is directed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant within a period of two months from the date of decree by receiving the balance sale consideration, failing which, the plaintiff would be at liberty to seek execution of the said decree and obtain a regular sale deed through the Court Commissioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Trial Court. 3. Respondent 1 is the plaintiff, who filed O.S. No. 70 of 2003 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26-9-2001. According to him, defendant 1 is the owner of suit schedule properties and she was in peaceful possession of the same. On 26-9-2001, she expressed her intention to sell the same on account of legal and family needs. On that day, she executed a registered agreement to sell the suit properties for a consideration of Rs. 87,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 66,000/- in the presence of witnesses. She agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,000/- at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he approached her for execution of the sale deed in his favour on receipt of the balance sale consideration. But she did not heed to his request. She evaded the requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and prepared to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,000/- to defendant 1. As defendant 1 did not come forward to register the sale deed in his favour in respect of suit items, he got issued legal notice dated 21-1-2003 to her, but she sent an untenable reply. According to the plaintiff, defendant 1 executed a registered sale deed in respect of Sy. 21,000/- to defendant 1. As defendant 1 did not come forward to register the sale deed in his favour in respect of suit items, he got issued legal notice dated 21-1-2003 to her, but she sent an untenable reply. According to the plaintiff, defendant 1 executed a registered sale deed in respect of Sy. No. 212, measuring 0.183/4 guntas in favour of defendant 2, which is illegal and opposed to law. Hence, she filed the suit seeking relief of specific performance of agreement dated 26-9-2001. 4. In response to the suit summons and Court notices, defendant 1 appeared and filed her written statement admitting that she is the owner of the suit schedule properties. While denying the plaint averments, she contended that plaintiff is a money lender at Chintamani Town. She and her husband Hanumanthappa approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and as security for the said sum, had executed the agreement in respect of the suit items, which are situated at Settimadamangala Village, Sugatur Hobli, Kolar Taluk. She contended the that agreement, though styled as an agreement to sell, was a nominal one. It was not to be acted upon. the thatre was an oral promise to return the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 2% interest per month within a period of six months. In that view of the matter, after lapse of six months, plaintiff demanded repayment of money with interest, at that time, they informed the plaintiff the thaty would sell the suit properties to some other person or persons. Plaintiff and his father G.V. Srinivas Shetty introduced one Anjinappa-defendant 2 to the plaintiff and sold suit item 2 to him apart from Sy. No. 146, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas; Sy. No. 116/1, measuring 1 acre 24 guntas and Sy. No. 116/2, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas of Settimadamangala Village, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,97,500/-. Suit item 2 was valued at Rs. 11,500/- and she executed registered sale favour of defendant 2 on 26-6-2002. She stated that plaintiff took balance amount i.e., principal and interest, which was given by them to her and handed over the remaining amount to her husband and defendant 1 and her husband had no balance to be paid to the plaintiff. 11,500/- and she executed registered sale favour of defendant 2 on 26-6-2002. She stated that plaintiff took balance amount i.e., principal and interest, which was given by them to her and handed over the remaining amount to her husband and defendant 1 and her husband had no balance to be paid to the plaintiff. the that agreement to sell executed by her on 26-9-2001 was a nominal one and not to be acted upon and only as security for borrowing the loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not taken any step against her husband who sold the properties to defendant 2. Plaintiff has filed the suit against her in order to knock off the suit schedule properties. Hence, defendant 1 sought dismissal of the suit. 5. Defendant 2 appeared through Counsel, but did not file any written statement. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant 1 executed agreement to sell dated 26-9-2001 and received Rs. 66,000/- out of Rs. 87,000/-? 2. Whether plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 3. Whether defendant 1 proves the that agreement to sell dated 26-9-2001 was only executed as a security for the debt? 4. What decree or order? 7. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and plaintiff produced sixteen documents, which were marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 16. Defendant 1 was examined as D.W. 1. Defendant 2 was examined as D.W. 3 and another witness by name Manjunatha was examined as D.W. 2. They produced three documents, which were marked as Exs. D. 1 to D. 3. On the basis of the said evidence, the Trial Court answered issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue 3 in the negative and partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, while refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 26-9-2001. The Trial Court directed defendant 1 to pay Rs. 66,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of agreement till realisation. 8. The Trial Court directed defendant 1 to pay Rs. 66,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of agreement till realisation. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 21-6-2007, plaintiff preferred R.A. No.73 of 2007 before the First Appellate Court, which on hearing the respective parties through their Counsel, framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in invoking Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, to refuse the relief of specific performance in the light of the finding given on the issues? 2. Whether any interference is called for by this Court and if so, to what extent? 3. To what reliefs and decree, the parties are entitled for? It answered Point No. 1 in the negative, Point No. 2 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by granting the relief of specific performance by modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. A direction was issued to the defendant to execute a sale deed within two months from the date of receiving the balance consideration. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, defendant 1 has preferred this appeal. At this stage, it may be noted that defendant 2 has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2(a) to 2(e) and learned Counsel for applicants who have filed I.A. No. 1 of 2016 who have sought for impleading themselves as respondents 3 to 7 in the appeal. 11. It is contended on behalf of the appellant the that First Appellate Court was not right in granting the decree of specific performance to the plaintiff/respondent 1 on the basis of Ex. P. 1, dated 26-9-2001. He contended the that said document although registered came into existence when defendant 1 sought for certain financial assistance from the plaintiff and Ex. P. 1 was executed by her as a security on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-from the plaintiff. He contended the that said document though styled as an agreement to sell or agreement of sale was only nominal and not to be acted upon. On return of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff, the said document has lost its efficacy. P. 1 was executed by her as a security on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-from the plaintiff. He contended the that said document though styled as an agreement to sell or agreement of sale was only nominal and not to be acted upon. On return of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff, the said document has lost its efficacy. He contended the that Trial Court was not right in directing defendant 1 to return a sum of Rs. 66,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the agreement till realisation. The grievance of the appellant with respect to the judgment of the Trial Court which has been compounded by the judgment of the First Appellate Court which has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and granted the decree of specific performance. He alternatively contended the that plaintiff was not at all ready and willing to perform his part of performance of the sale agreement dated 26-9-2001. That a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has to be paid as balance sale consideration and the plaintiff did not come forward to tender the said amount. Therefore, the defendant 1 was justified in alienating item 1 of the suit schedule properties to the defendant 2. At that stage, plaintiff rushed to the Court to seek the relief of specific performance for which he is not entitled to. He further contended the that Trial Court held the that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief in view of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby, ordered for refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs. 66,000/-. He contended that even the direction for refund is erroneous and the that entire suit has to be dismissed rather than granting the higher relief of specific performance of the agreement as has been done by the First Appellate Court. He submitted that substantial questions of law would arise in the appeal and the same may be admitted for a detailed consideration. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent 1/plaintiff supporting the judgment of the First Appellate Court contended the that fact that defendant 1 has executed the sale agreement on 26-9-2001 has been established. He submitted that substantial questions of law would arise in the appeal and the same may be admitted for a detailed consideration. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent 1/plaintiff supporting the judgment of the First Appellate Court contended the that fact that defendant 1 has executed the sale agreement on 26-9-2001 has been established. Both the Courts have held that it is not a security for financial assistance, that defendant 1 had executed' the said agreement to sell the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff on receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs. 66,000/-, whereas, the entire sale consideration was for a sum of Rs. 87,000/-. The time for completion and the transaction was two years but in the interregnum, defendant 1 alienated item 2 to defendant 2. Even though there was sufficient time for the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, that event did not happen on account of the alienation made by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2. Plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement by receiving balance sale consideration by both defendants 1 and 2. He submitted that when the Trial Court has answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff, then it should have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff and ordered specific performance of the sale agreement dated 26-9-2001. He contended that no circumstance under Section 20 of the Act prevail so as to decline the relief to the plaintiff. In such circumstance, the plaintiff was justified in filing the regular appeal and the First Appellate Court has rightly granted the relief of specific performance and directed defendant 2 also to join defendant 1 to execute the sale deed which judgment and decree, does not call for any interference in this appeal. He submitted that no substantial question of law would arise and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 13. Learned Counsel for the proposed respondents 3 to 7 contended the thaty have been constrained to file an application to implead themselves in this appeal on account of the fact that O.S. No. 241 of 2003 had been filed by them before the Competent a decree of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which includes suit schedule properties. That suit has been decreed and therefore, any order or decree passed in this appeal would have a bearing on the decree the thaty have secured in O.S. No. 241 of 2003. Learned Counsel further contended the that plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are parties in that suit and the thaty were well aware of the decree made in favour of defendants 3 to 7 in O.S. No. 241 of 2003 and hence, they seek to implead in this proceedings. 14. Learned Counsel who has appeared for the legal representatives of defendant 2 who is arrayed as respondent 2 in this appeal submitted that as against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S. No. 241 of 2003, he has preferred an appeal and therefore, there is no finality insofar as that decree for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties is concerned. He further submitted that item 2 of the suit schedule properties was alienated by defendant 1 in his favour as she had the competency to do so, and the said alienation was for a valuable consideration under a registered instrument and therefore, he has acquired title insofar as item 2 is concerned. Therefore, the First Appellate Court could not have passed the judgment and decree in respect of item 2, is the submission. 15. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that plaintiff is unsuccessful before the Courts below the that agreement dated 26-9-2001 is an agreement to sell the suit schedule properties. On that day, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 66,000/- to defendant 1. The entire sale consideration was Rs. 87,000/- and the balance consideration of Rs. 21,000/- only had to be paid within a period of two years from that date. However, even before that date, defendant 1 sold the suit schedule properties to defendant 2. It is on that account the that plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 26-9-2001. The Trial Court held the that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract and prior to that, the Trial Court has concluded the that agreement dated 26-9-2001 was not executed as a security for a loan transaction but indeed, it was an agreement to sell the suit schedule property. The Trial Court held the that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract and prior to that, the Trial Court has concluded the that agreement dated 26-9-2001 was not executed as a security for a loan transaction but indeed, it was an agreement to sell the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Trial Court while holding the points and issues in favour of the plaintiff, nevertheless declined to grant specific performance of the agreement and directed refund of the advance sale consideration. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff preferred R.A. No. 73 of 2007 before the First Appellate Court which has examined the matter by reconsidering the evidence on record. In that context, the First Appellate Court has also considered under Section 20 of the Act. In light of the fact the that Trial Court had declined to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff while considering the matter under Section 20 of the Act, the First Appellate Court has come to a conclusion that no circumstance as stated in Section 20 of the Act prevailed so as to decline the relief to grant specific performance of the plaintiff. Although, item 2 of the suit schedule property was alienated by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 on 26-9-2001, which is subsequent to the agreement-Ex. P. 1, dated 26-9-2001, that alienation would not come in the way of granting the relief to the plaintiff if the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to. On that score, the Trial Court held the thatre would be multiplicity of proceedings on all the suit schedule properties which were agreed to be sold by the defendant 1 to the plaintiff and declined to grant the relief and that reasoning is incorrect. Therefore, the First Appellate Court while setting aside that aspect of the matter by noting the fact the that Trial Court was not right in not exercising discretion in favour of the plaintiff set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with regard to the relief of specific performance of Ex, P. 1, dated 26-9-2001. Thereby, the First Appellate Court granted the relief to the plaintiff. The defendants have been directed to execute a regular sale deed within two months from the date of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, on receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 21,000/-. Thereby, the First Appellate Court granted the relief to the plaintiff. The defendants have been directed to execute a regular sale deed within two months from the date of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, on receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 21,000/-. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court which has in substance modified the judgment of the Trial Court by granting the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. 16. Insofar as item 2 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, both defendants 1 and 2 have to join to execute the sale deed in that regard. Insofar as other items are concerned, it is only defendant 1 who has to execute the sale deed. On that aspect of the matter, this Court need not at this stage reiterate the directions of the First Appellate Court. Therefore, in my opinion no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. Before parting, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the impleading respondents 3 to 7 have been noted. Be that as it may, in O.S. No. 241 of 2003 the impleading respondents 3 to 7 may have to secure the judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of various properties including the four items of the present suit but that decree is a subject-matter of two appeals in R.A. Nos. 95 and 102 of 2011. In both appeals, the plaintiff and defendants in these proceedings are parties along with others. It is also settled position of law that in a suit for specific performance, the necessary parties are, the executant's or the person who has executed the agreement and the plaintiff and it is not necessary for others to be added as parties. 18. In the circumstance, I.A. No. 1 of 2016 is dismissed. 19. As no substantial questions of law arises, the appeal is also dismissed. 20. Parties to bear their respective costs.