JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal by fourth defendant is directed against judgment and decree dated 21.11.2017 passed in R.A. No. 18/2015 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, sitting at Sirsi, rejecting the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 passed in O.S. No. 6/2013, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur, sitting at Haliyal. 2. Heard Shri B. Mohammed Ali along with Shri Hameed S. Shaikh, learned advocates for the appellant and Smt.Hemalekha K.S., learned advocate for respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are served, but remained unrepresented and notice to respondent No. 4 has been dispensed with. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. Plaintiff brought the instant suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.07.2012 and for a direction to the defendants No. 1 to 3 to execute a sale deed in his favour by receiving balance consideration and in the alternative to refund Rs. 4,25,000/-with interest at 15% per annum. 5. Plaintiff’s case in brief is, defendants No. 1 to 3 executed an agreement to sell on 23.07.2012 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 13,31,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- as advance sale consideration at the time of execution of the agreement; and agreed to execute a sale deed on 31.01.2013, by receiving balance consideration of Rs. 9,06,000/-. Plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration. Defendants No. 1 to 3 failed to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar on 29.01.2013, compelling plaintiff to cause a legal notice on 30.01.2013 calling upon defendants No. 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed. Defendants No. 1 to 3 did not accede to the demand made in the legal notice. Plaintiff learnt that defendants No. 1 to 3 sold the suit schedule property to fourth defendant by executing a sale deed dated 15.01.2013 for a consideration of Rs. 2,49,000/-. The fourth defendant was aware about the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3. Thus, the transaction inter se between defendants No. 1 to 3 on one hand and fourth defendant on the other is illegal, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. 6. Defendants No. 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. 2,49,000/-. The fourth defendant was aware about the agreement between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3. Thus, the transaction inter se between defendants No. 1 to 3 on one hand and fourth defendant on the other is illegal, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. 6. Defendants No. 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. Fourth defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement admitting that defendants No. 1 to 3 had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/-. However, defendants No. 1 to 3 who were in financial difficulties, have sold the suit schedule property in his favour for Rs. 2,49,000/- as per the prevailing market value. Fourth defendant also contended that he had learnt from defendants No. 1 to 3 that the earlier transaction with the plaintiff had been cancelled and the advance sale consideration had been returned to the plaintiff; and thereafter, he purchased the suit schedule property and got the mutation entry in his name on 07.02.2013. With these pleadings, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed seven issues and they read as follows: 1. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have executed agreement of sale dated 23.07.2012 agreeing to sell property to him for Rs. 13,31,000/-? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 received advance amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under agreement of sale? 4. Whether defendant No. 4 proves that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have already cancelled agreement of sale dated 23.07.2012 executed in favour of plaintiff and they have returned advance amount to him? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale? 6. Alternatively whether plaintiff is entitled for return of advance amount with interest and compensation? 7. What decree of order?” 8. Parties went to trial with aforesaid pleadings and issues. On behalf of plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 3 and exhibits P1 to P10 marked. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DWs. 1 and 2; and exhibits D1 to D6 marked. 9. 7. What decree of order?” 8. Parties went to trial with aforesaid pleadings and issues. On behalf of plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 3 and exhibits P1 to P10 marked. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DWs. 1 and 2; and exhibits D1 to D6 marked. 9. Answering issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative and issues No. 4 and 6 in the negative, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs. 10. On appeal by fourth defendant, the lower appellate Court framed following points for its consideration: “(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Defendant No. 4, No. 1 to 3 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for valid consideration of Rs. 13,31,000/- to the Plaintiff executed an agreement to sell dated 23.07.2017 on receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/-? (ii) Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Defendant No. 4 agreed to execute the registered sale deed on 31.01.2013 on receipt of balance consideration of Rs. 9,06,000/-? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff further proves that he is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (iv) Whether the Defendant No. 4 proves that, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have cancelled the agreement to sell dated 23.07.2012 executed in favour of the plaintiff and returned the advance sale consideration amount to the Plaintiff? (v) Whether the Judgment of the Trial court is perverse, capricious and unsustainable under law? (vi) Is there any necessity to intervene in the Judgment of the Trial Court? (vii) What order?” 11. On re-appreciation of evidence on record, answering points No. 1 to 3 in the affirmative, points No. 4, 5 and 6 in the negative, lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the fourth defendant has presented this second appeal. 12. Shri B. Mohammed Ali, learned advocate for the fourth defendant urged following contentions as substantial questions: (i) that exhibit P2 (agreement between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3) is not an agreement in the eye of law. At best, it can be treated as an acknowledgement and therefore, unenforceable. 12. Shri B. Mohammed Ali, learned advocate for the fourth defendant urged following contentions as substantial questions: (i) that exhibit P2 (agreement between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3) is not an agreement in the eye of law. At best, it can be treated as an acknowledgement and therefore, unenforceable. (ii) that exhibit P2 is an invalid document as it does not bear the signatures of the vendors in the first page of the document and does not bear the signature of the purchaser anywhere in the document. (iii) that exhibit P2 is an unregistered document and therefore, unenforceable in law in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (Private) Limited vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (7) SCC 363 . (iv) that PW-2 did not subject himself for cross-examination and therefore, his evidence could not have been considered by the Courts below. 13. Smt. Hemalekha K.S. learned Advocate for respondent No. 1-plaintiff argued in support of the impugned judgments and placed reliance on the following authorities: 1. R. Rangaraj vs. Legal Rep. of Late Sri P. Venkatesha Sastry, 2000 (1) KCCR 417 2. MMS Investments, Madurai vs. V. Veerappan, 2007 (9) SCC 660 14. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records. 15. A careful scrutiny of records discloses that exhibit P2 is styled as ‘Advance Sale Consideration Receipt in respect of sale of agricultural land measuring 3 acres 1 gunta’. The first page contains the details of the e-stamp. By the stamp issuing authority, description of the document is mentioned as ‘sale agreement’. The name of the first party is mentioned as ‘Abdul Gafar K. Kusugal Kalwad’ (defendant No. 1). The name of second party is mentioned as ‘Sanju Babu Kolambi Kaalwad’ (plaintiff). The stamp duty of Rs. 250/- has been paid by Abdul Gafar K. Kusugal Kalwad. These details are printed by the e-stamp issuing authority. The stamp paper has been issued by PCARD Bank Limited, Haliyal and bears the signature of its Supervisor. The details printed by the stamp issuing authority occupies about 75% of the space available in the page. In the remaining small portion, six lines have been written by the scribe. Signatures of the vendors namely, defendants No. 1 to 3 are found in page Nos. 2 and 3. The details printed by the stamp issuing authority occupies about 75% of the space available in the page. In the remaining small portion, six lines have been written by the scribe. Signatures of the vendors namely, defendants No. 1 to 3 are found in page Nos. 2 and 3. Page No. 3 also contains signatures of five witnesses and the scribe. The document bears the seal and signature of a Notary Public by name Shri A.B. Thoranakatti. In page 3 of the agreement, the photographs of the vendors are also pasted and duly attested by the Notary Public. All three pages contain certification of number of corrections by the Notary Public with his seal and signatures. 16. Exhibit P3 is the legal notice dated 30.01.2013 caused on behalf of the plaintiff, calling upon defendants No. 1 to 3 to receive Rs. 9,06,000/- and to execute the sale deed on 31.01.2013. 17. Exhibit D3 is a copy of the sale deed dated 15.01.2013 executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of fourth defendant for a consideration of Rs. 2,49,000/-. Among other covenants, the said sale deed contains a specific covenant that the vendors had not entered into any agreement with anyone to sell the property nor encumbered the same in any manner. 18. As noticed above, Vendors (defendants No. 1 to 3) have remained ex-parte before the trial Court. Fourth defendant has been examined as DW-1. Relevant portion of his affidavit dated 03.11.2014 as examination in chief reads as follows: “I Shri. Mukumhussain Mahaboobsab Bapunavar, Age 56 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Kawalwad village, Tq: Haliyal (U.K.) do hereby state on solemn affirmation is as under:- I am the defendant No. 4 in this suit. I know the plaintiff and other defendant of this suit. I know the entire facts of this suit. The true facts of the suit are as under:- I am the resident of Kawalwad village and I am an agriculturist and also running a ration shop at Kawalvad village. The defendant No. 1 to 3 are joint owners of the suit property. To meetout their financial difficulties and to clear of the loan of them they decided to sell the suit property. In this regard the defendant No. 1 to 3 approached the defendant No. 4 in the first week of January 2013. The defendant No. 1 to 3 are joint owners of the suit property. To meetout their financial difficulties and to clear of the loan of them they decided to sell the suit property. In this regard the defendant No. 1 to 3 approached the defendant No. 4 in the first week of January 2013. After due negotiation between them the sale transaction of the suit property was settled for a consideration of amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- as per the prevailing market value. The defendant No. 4 after the said talks when he wanted to rectify the correctness of the records of the suit property came to know that the defendant No. 1 to 3 with an intension to sell the suit property executed and an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 23.7.2012. As per the said agreement of sale the sale deed has to be executed on 31.1.2013 by paying the balance sale consideration amount. But it is learnt from the defendant No. 1 to 3 that the said transaction was cancelled and the defendant No. 1 to 3 have cleared of the advance amount of Rs.6,03,500/-which they have received from the plaintiff. In this regard the plaintiff has given the receipt to that effect by putting his signature. Thus the defendant No. 4 came to know that the previous transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 has been cleared and cancelled. After knowing this fact the defendant No. 4 has agreed to purchase the suit property. The registered sale deed has been executed by defendant No. 1 to 3 in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 15.1.2013 by receiving a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- as per the prevailing market value.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Thus, fourth defendant’s affidavit clearly discloses that fourth defendant had knowledge of the previous transaction between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3. Though it is asserted in the affidavit that defendants No. 1 to 3 had cancelled their agreement with the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs. 6,03,500/- no documentary evidence is produced to substantiate this assertion. It is interesting to note that as per exhibit P2, the defendants No. 1 to 3 had contracted to sell the suit schedule property for Rs. 13,31,000/-on 23.07.2012. 6,03,500/- no documentary evidence is produced to substantiate this assertion. It is interesting to note that as per exhibit P2, the defendants No. 1 to 3 had contracted to sell the suit schedule property for Rs. 13,31,000/-on 23.07.2012. They had agreed to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration on or before 31.03.2013. However, whilst the said agreement was subsisting, defendants No. 1 to 3 executed the sale deed on 15.01.2013 in favour of fourth defendant for a paltry consideration of Rs. 2,49,000/-. In the examination in chief, defendant No. 4 has stated that he is a permanent resident of Kavalawad village as also defendants No. 1 to 3. Further, interestingly, in complete variance with his deposition in examination in chief, he has admitted in the cross-examination that he had no knowledge about agreement dated 23.07.2012. He has further stated that after the execution of the sale deed, defendants No. 1 to 3 told him that they had previously agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and received a part consideration; and that, defendants No. 1 to 3 had refunded the part consideration to the plaintiff. He has also admitted that defendants No. 1 to 3 did not show any record evidencing the refund of ‘part consideration’ to the plaintiff. 20. One another aspect is highly disturbing in this case. The Notary Public, Shri A.B. Thoranakatti who has testified the execution of exhibit P2 before him on 23.07.2012, has appeared on behalf of fourth defendant as his advocate in the Court. This is reprehensible. 21. The circumstance that defendants No. 1 to 3 offered to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 13,31,000/- to the plaintiff and immediately thereafter executed a sale deed in favour of fourth defendant, that too two weeks prior to expiry of the period prescribed for conclusion of the transaction, speaks volumes about the mala-fide intention on the part of all defendants. 22. Now let me deal with the contentions urged on behalf of fourth defendant-appellant. 23. The first contention is that exhibit P2 is not an agreement but only an acknowledgement. To buttress this argument, learned advocate for fourth defendant placed reliance on an authority in the case of Sathish Kumar vs. Karan Singh and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 352 . 22. Now let me deal with the contentions urged on behalf of fourth defendant-appellant. 23. The first contention is that exhibit P2 is not an agreement but only an acknowledgement. To buttress this argument, learned advocate for fourth defendant placed reliance on an authority in the case of Sathish Kumar vs. Karan Singh and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 352 . In the said case, Supreme Court of India was examining a case in which plaintiff therein had contended that the Delhi Development Authority had taken a decision to allot a plot of land in favour of the defendant therein. The defendant had desired to sell his ‘right’ flowing under the recommendation for allotment of plot by the D.D.A. in favour of the defendant. The land in question was not transferable for a period of ten years. It is in those circumstances, that the Supreme Court of India set aside the decree for specific performance by recording thus: “14. In spite of the aforesaid fact noticed by the High Court, that the land so allotted to the defendant is not transferable for a period of 10 years, the High Court failed to hold that a decree for specific performance cannot be passed. 15. We are sorry to hold that both the trial court and the High court have completely misconstrued the facts of the case and misunderstood the law laid down by this Court in the matter of exercising discretionary power for granting a decree for specific performance. 16. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as no decree for specific performance can be passed on the basis of the alleged receipt-cum-agreement. We therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgments passed by the trial court and the High Court.” 24. But in contrast, in the instant case, exhibit P2 is executed by land owners and there is no impediment in transferring their ownership. Further it’s execution has been admitted by all concerned and particularly, fourth defendant. In fact, fourth defendant himself has filed a copy of the said document and the same is marked as exhibit D1. But in contrast, in the instant case, exhibit P2 is executed by land owners and there is no impediment in transferring their ownership. Further it’s execution has been admitted by all concerned and particularly, fourth defendant. In fact, fourth defendant himself has filed a copy of the said document and the same is marked as exhibit D1. Further, in his examination in chief, fourth defendant has stated thus “the defendants No. 1 to 3 with an intention to sell the suit property executed ‘an agreement of sale’ in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 23.07.2012.” Further, though exhibit P2 is styled as an ’advance sale receipt in respect of sale of immovable property’ it contains all ingredients of the offer and the parties had understood the documents as a ‘sale agreement’. Further, the execution of the document has been testified by a Notary Public. Unfortunately, he has acted as an advocate for fourth defendant. In the light of these admitted facts, the authority in the case of Sathish Kumar (supra) is not be applicable. Hence, in my view, the document, exhibit P2 will have to be construed as an agreement between plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3. 25. The second contention is that exhibit P2 is invalid as it does not contain the signature of the vendors in the first page of the document and signature of the purchaser anywhere in the document. As noted hereinabove, the first page of exhibit P2-the e-stamp paper, occupies nearly 75% of the space. Six lines are written in the remaining portion. The scribe has continued writing on the backside of the stamp paper which is page No. 2 of the document. One additional sheet is added as page No. 3. All three pages contain certification of the Notary with seal and signature. 26. With regard to the contention that the document does not contain the signature of purchasers, Smt. Hemalekha, relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of R. Rangaraj vs. Legal Rep. of Late P. Venkatesha Sastry, 2000 (1) KCCR 417 and contended that signature of purchaser is not necessary. It is settled that, in India an agreement of sale signed by the Vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contrast. of Late P. Venkatesha Sastry, 2000 (1) KCCR 417 and contended that signature of purchaser is not necessary. It is settled that, in India an agreement of sale signed by the Vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contrast. Alok Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 582 . Therefore, this contention of the appellant is also untenable. 27. The third contention is that exhibit P2 is unenforceable as it is not registered. In support of this, reliance was placed on the authority in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (Private) Limited Supra. In the said case, Supreme Court of India was considering transfer of properties through ‘Sale Agreements’ or ‘General Power of Attorney’ or ‘Wills’. It is settled that an ‘agreement to sell’ is not a document which requires registration compulsorily. Therefore, the said authority is not applicable to the facts of this case and this contention also fails. 28. The fourth contention is that PW-2 did not subject himself to the cross-examination. PW-2 is none other than defendant No. 2 in the suit and one of the vendors. In his examination in chief, he has stated that the fourth defendant, having full knowledge of the earlier agreement, has got a sale deed registered in his favour. He has also stated that the stand of defendants No. 1 and 3, that defendants have refunded the sum of Rs. 4,25,000/-to the plaintiff is false. It is true that he has not subjected himself for cross-examination. The lower appellate Court has recorded in paragraph No. 17 that since PW-2 did not subject himself for cross examination, the trial Court has discarded his evidence. As the evidence of PW-2 has been discarded, this contention is too fragile to countenance. 29. Thus, a careful analysis of the facts of this case leads to an irresistible inference that defendants No. 1 to 3 having offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 13,31,000/- as per exhibit P2, executed a sham sale deed as per exhibit D3 in favour of fourth defendant for Rs. 2,49,000/-. The defendants No. 1 to 3 have remained ex-parte after executing exhibit D3. Only the fourth defendant is seeking to justify sale in his favour on wholly untenable grounds. 13,31,000/- as per exhibit P2, executed a sham sale deed as per exhibit D3 in favour of fourth defendant for Rs. 2,49,000/-. The defendants No. 1 to 3 have remained ex-parte after executing exhibit D3. Only the fourth defendant is seeking to justify sale in his favour on wholly untenable grounds. In the conspectus of facts and law discussed hereinabove, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. 30. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.