JUDGMENT : This appeal by the fifth defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2006 in O.S.No.92/2001, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kunigal. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status before Trial Court. 3. Heard Shri N.Manohar, learned Advocate for appellant and Shri G.S.Balagangadhar, learned Advocate for respondents. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, by an agreement dated 8.7.1996, defendants No.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘vendors’) agreed to sell suit schedule property, dry land measuring 04 acres 05 guntas in Survey No.42/3 of Rayagonahalli village, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, for a consideration of Rs.1,30,000/to the plaintiff. On 23.9.1996, Plaintiff issued a legal notice (Ex.P2) calling upon defendants No.1 to 4 to execute the sale deed. Defendants No.1 to 4, by a legal notice dated 24.9.1996, cancelled the agreement contending that plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract. 5. On 25.10.1996, defendants No.1 to 4 executed a sale deed in favour of fifth defendant. 6. In the meanwhile, plaintiff had filed the instant suit on 7.10.1996 against vendors inter alia praying for a judgment and decree directing them to execute the sale deed. By amending the plaint, plaintiff also sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 25.10.1996 executed by the vendors in favour of fifth defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiff. Fifth defendant got himself impleaded in the suit subsequently. 7. On behalf of plaintiff, five witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 marked. None was examined nor any exhibits marked on behalf of defendants. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree. Feeling aggrieved, 5th defendant has filed this appeal. 8. Shri N.Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable in law for more than one reason. Firstly, that the plaintiff has not performed his part of the contract and therefore, the agreement had stood cancelled. The said fact was conveyed by the vendors through legal notice, Ex.P7. Secondly, though defendant No.5 had filed his written statement, he was not given reasonable opportunity to crossexamine plaintiff’s witnesses and to lead his evidence. Thirdly, defendant No.5 was not able to effectively defend the suit as there was bereavement in his family with the death of his brother. The said fact was conveyed by the vendors through legal notice, Ex.P7. Secondly, though defendant No.5 had filed his written statement, he was not given reasonable opportunity to crossexamine plaintiff’s witnesses and to lead his evidence. Thirdly, defendant No.5 was not able to effectively defend the suit as there was bereavement in his family with the death of his brother. Therefore, he was unable to give necessary instructions to his advocate and be present in the Court. Thus, he was prevented from effectively defending the suit. Fourthly, defendant No.5 is a bona fide purchaser and would be put to irreparable loss and injury, if the impugned judgment and decree is not set aside. 9. Shri.G.S.Balagangadhar, learned Counsel for plaintiff, supporting the impugned judgment and decree vehemently contended that vendors having executed an agreement to sell the suit schedule property on 8.7.1996 for a consideration of Rs.1,30,000/and having received a part consideration of Rs.15,000/, failed to execute the sale deed. Amplifying this contention, he submitted that vendors had called upon plaintiff to be present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 2.9.1996. Only defendants No.1, 2 and 3 turned up. Defendant No.4 was said to be unwell. Therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. When plaintiff subsequently called upon the vendors to execute the sale deed, they refused to accede to his request compelling him to cause a legal notice. The vendors have also caused a legal notice upon the plaintiff on the very next day stating that the agreement had stood cancelled due to nonperformance of contract on plaintiff’s part. 10. Shri Balagangadhar further submitted that, though plaintiff presented the suit on 7.10.1996, he could not obtain any interim order on his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, to restrain vendors from alienating the suit schedule property, because, vendors had filed a caveat petition in the trial Court. Thus, vendors were in full knowledge of all the developments. They appeared before the Trial Court on 26.10.1996 after executing the sale deed in favour of fifth defendant on 25.10.1996. He argued that the chronological events clearly establish that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 is a sham document created only to defeat plaintiff’s rights. Thus, vendors were in full knowledge of all the developments. They appeared before the Trial Court on 26.10.1996 after executing the sale deed in favour of fifth defendant on 25.10.1996. He argued that the chronological events clearly establish that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 is a sham document created only to defeat plaintiff’s rights. He further submitted that the ground of bereavement in the family of fifth defendant is untenable because his brother died on 18.4.2004, whereas recording of evidence on behalf of plaintiff was concluded two years thereafter, on 2.8.2006. Further, defendants No.1 to 4 chose not to file their written statements. He argued that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of each one of the defendants is questionable and concluded his argument with a prayer to dismiss the appeal. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. Admittedly, in the agreement dated 8.7.1996, vendors have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,30,000/and received Rs.15,000/as advance sale consideration. In his evidence, PW.1 has specifically stated that he carried balance consideration of Rs.1,15,000/on 2.9.1996. This evidence has remained unrebutted. It is also contended in the legal notice dated 23.9.1996, issued on behalf of the plaintiff that fourth defendant did not turn up at the Sub-Registrar’s office on 2.9.1996. Even before the receipt of the said notice, vendors got issued a notice to the plaintiff on 24.9.1996 stating that the agreement had stood cancelled as plaintiff had failed to pay balance consideration. 13. Records disclose that defendants No.1 and 2 had filed a Caveat Petition No.176/1996 in the Court of Munsiff and Caveat Petition No.223/1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Tumkur on 24.9.1996. Defendant No.5 got himself impleaded by filing I.A.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed on 6.2.1999. Defendants No.1 to 4 have not filed any written statement. Defendant No.5 has filed a short written statement denying any agreement between vendors and plaintiff and contending that plaintiff did not have a cause of action. 14. Based on the pleadings, learned trial Judge framed following issues: “(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1 to 4 agreed sell the suit schedule property for Rs.1,30,000/and executed sale agreement on 8-7-1996 after receiving Rs.15,000/towards sale consideration amount? 14. Based on the pleadings, learned trial Judge framed following issues: “(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 1 to 4 agreed sell the suit schedule property for Rs.1,30,000/and executed sale agreement on 8-7-1996 after receiving Rs.15,000/towards sale consideration amount? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation under the contract? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale agreement dated 18-10-1995 and registered sale deed dt:25-10-1996 got registered on 29-10-96 in favour of the defendant by defendants 1 to 4 are illegal bad in law, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit? (5) What order and decree?” 15. Answering issues No.1 to 4 in the affirmative, Trial Court decreed the suit. 16. In the conspectus of above facts, the following points arise for consideration of this Court: (a) Whether plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract? (b) Whether appellant-fifth defendant is a bonafide purchaser? (c) Whether the impugned judgment requires any interference? 17. Re: Point (a): The agreement to sell the suit schedule property by the vendors is not in dispute. In the legal notice issued on behalf of Plaintiff, it is categorically stated that plaintiff was called to the Sub-Registrar’s office on 2.9.1996, but the sale deed could not be executed as defendant No.4 did not turn up. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit on 7.10.1996. By then, vendors had filed caveat petitions and executed a sale deed in favour of fifth defendant on 25.10.1996. They have appeared before the Trial Court but have not filed their written statements. Thus, the vendors have failed to dislodge plaintiff’s contentions. Thus, the plaintiff has established that, he made all efforts to obtain the sale deed executed. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract. 18. Re: Point (b): Defendants No.1 to 4 have remained absent. Defendant No.5 has only denied the agreement between the vendors and the plaintiff; and merely stated that the plaintiff did not have cause of action. No witness is examined on behalf of defendants. Facts on record disclose that the vendors made conscious efforts to ensure that plaintiff did not obtain an order of injunction against them by filing caveat petitions. Defendant No.5 has only denied the agreement between the vendors and the plaintiff; and merely stated that the plaintiff did not have cause of action. No witness is examined on behalf of defendants. Facts on record disclose that the vendors made conscious efforts to ensure that plaintiff did not obtain an order of injunction against them by filing caveat petitions. Execution of agreement and filing the suit has taken place within a span of about three months. Further, the learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence has recorded as follows: 12. ................“The evidence of PW.1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P8 clearly discloses that the defendants 1 to 4 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, they have executed Ex.P1 in the presence of PW.2 to 6 and they have received advance consideration of Rs.15,000/and they have agreed to execute the registered sale deed within 2.9.96. Inspite of repeated demands and also issue of Legal Notices (sic notice), the defendants neither come (sic came) forward to execute the registered sale deed nor received the balance sale consideration amount. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly discloses that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation. On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 4 failed to perform their obligation as per terms and conditions in Ex.P1. The plaintiff has clearly established the very execution of Ex.P1 and the balance (sic advance) sale consideration amount received by the defendant No.1 to 4. Hence I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.” In view of the above, appellant-fifth defendant cannot be considered as a bonafide purchaser. 19. Re: Point (c): Thus, on reexamination of pleadings and evidence on record, it clearly emerges that: • the agreement is proved; • the readiness and willingness of the purchaser is proved; • vendors and fifth defendant with mala fide intention made joint efforts to defeat the agreement in favour of the plaintiff; and • the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised the modicum of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, to grant the prayer. 20. Hence, no exception can be taken to the Judgment rendered by the learned Trial Judge. 21. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.