JUDGMENT : This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful before the Court below. 2. Plaintiff - Sri P. Satish Pai instituted a suit O.S.No.754/1997 which was subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.49/2006, seeking specific performance of the contract by directing defendants-1 and 2 to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property namely, agricultural land bearing Sy.No.5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in terms of agreement of sale dated 11.10.1994. 3. It was the case of plaintiff that defendants-1 and 2 were absolute owners of suit schedule property; they agreed to sell the said property and in that connection, executed an agreement on 11.10.1994 – Ex.P-1; on the date of agreement, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs viz., Rs. 1 lakh by way of cash and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh by way of two cheques. Plaintiff further asserted that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of loan for which defendants had acknowledged the same by issuing a separate receipt. It was also urged that defendants had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 03.01.1995; thus, total sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- had been paid by way of advance sale consideration. 4. Total sale consideration agreed as asserted in the plaint was Rs. 9 lakhs. Plaintiff contended that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying balance consideration amount to get sale deed registered in his name, defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed nor did they respond to the request made by plaintiff to obtain necessary income tax clearance and furnish original documents such as mutation register extract, index of land records, etc, pertaining to the land in question. Legal notice issued by plaintiff on 12.09.1995 calling upon the defendants to execute sale deed though served was not replied. Therefore suit was instituted by plaintiff. 5. Though defendants-1 and 2 were served, they did not appear before the Court below. Therefore they were placed exparte. Court below has proceeded to record the evidence of plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1. One witness by name Sri C R Suresh has been examined as P.W.2. Documents - Exs.P-1 to P-7 were produced and marked in evidence. Court below had framed the following issues for its determination. Therefore they were placed exparte. Court below has proceeded to record the evidence of plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1. One witness by name Sri C R Suresh has been examined as P.W.2. Documents - Exs.P-1 to P-7 were produced and marked in evidence. Court below had framed the following issues for its determination. (1) “Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.9 Lakhs under written statement dt.11-10-1994 and that they have received Rs.2,75,000/- as part consideration in furtherance of the same? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd persons to make unlawful gains? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for? (5) Whether the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled for the return of part consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property? (7) What order or decree?” 6. After examining the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, Court below has come to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to establish due execution of agreement and readiness and willingness on his part to perform his part of the contract. As regards entitlement of the plaintiff for alternative relief of return of part of sale consideration with interest, Court below has held that plaintiff had failed to establish that defendants-1 and 2 were the absolute owners of the property. In this regard, Court below has found that plaintiff had failed to produce RTC extracts pertaining to the suit schedule land for the relevant year. 7. Sri Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.L. Vishwanath for appellant contends that as defendants remained exparte, assertions made by plaintiff remained unrebutted and therefore Court below was not justified in dismissing the suit. He has further contended that when plaintiff had examined the witness to the agreement of sale– Ex.P-1 as P.W.2, Court below ought to have granted the relief of refund of advance amount and should have ordered for refund of the advance sale consideration paid by plaintiff to defendants-1 and 2. 8. He has further contended that when plaintiff had examined the witness to the agreement of sale– Ex.P-1 as P.W.2, Court below ought to have granted the relief of refund of advance amount and should have ordered for refund of the advance sale consideration paid by plaintiff to defendants-1 and 2. 8. Appellant has filed an application - I.A.2/2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents namely, RTC extracts of different years in respect of suit schedule land. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and on perusal of the material on record including original records, the following points would arise for our consideration: (1) Whether appellant – plaintiff has established due execution of the agreement by the persons/defendants who were absolute owners of the properties? (2) Whether Court below was justified in dismissing the suit? (3) Whether Court below was justified in refusing refund of the advance sale consideration? (4) Whether application – I.A.2/2007 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC deserves to be allowed? (5) What order? 10. Since points formulated for consideration are interconnected, they are taken up together for discussion. 11. At the outset, It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for appellant that as on the date of filing of the suit, suit schedule property was no longer under the ownership and possession of defendants-1 and 2 as the suit schedule land had been sold by Smt. Akkayamma – defendant-1 in favour of one Sri Munegowda by executing a registered sale deed dated 26.07.1995. During the course of arguments, copy of the registered sale deed dated 26.07.1995 is placed for perusal of the Court. On perusal of the same, it is clear that Smt. Akkayamma has executed registered sale deed dated 26.07.1995 conveying right, title and interest over suit schedule property which totally measured 1 acre 20 guntas. To this document, defendant No.2 –Sri C.R. Purushotham is a witness, so also other two persons by name Smt. Shantamma and Sri Nagaraju whose names have been shown as joint owners in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question. 12. It is thus clear that as on the date when suit was instituted i.e., as on 13.10.1997, defendants-1 and 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. 12. It is thus clear that as on the date when suit was instituted i.e., as on 13.10.1997, defendants-1 and 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore suit for specific performance of the contract could not have been initiated against Smt. Akkayamma and Sri C.R. Purushotham – defendants-1 and 2 without impleading the purchasers and without making necessary averments regarding the transaction of sale between defendant-1 on the one hand and subsequent purchaser Sri Munegowda on the other. Hence, it emerges that suit for specific performance was not maintainable in respect of suit property against defendants-1 and 2 as they were no longer owners of suit schedule property. 13. It is in this context, observations of trial Court regarding failure on the part of plaintiff to produce relevant revenue records pertaining to agricultural land for the year 1996-97 and its consequence thereof is required to be examined. It is true appellant has filed an application – I.A.No.2/2007 seeking permission to produce additional documents which are the relevant revenue records pertaining to different periods including the year in which the suit was instituted. We have carefully perused the revenue records produced by way of additional evidence. We find that as regards the suit schedule land, names of Smt. Akkayamma and Smt. Shantamma and Sri. Nagaraj were shown as joint holders prior to the year of institution of the suit. For the year 1997-98 name of Sri Munegowda, purchaser of the property from Smt. Akkayamma – defendant No.1 has been entered as kabjedar/anubhavdar both in column Nos.9 & 12. It is, therefore, clear that even on the strength of the documents now produced by plaintiff, it cannot be said that as on the date when suit was instituted, defendants-1 and 2 were absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Indeed they had parted with the property by executing sale deed way back on 26.07.1995 itself. Hence, plaintiff could not have instituted the suit for specific performance against defendants-1 and 2 who had ceased to be owners of the suit schedule property. 14. Plaintiff has not impleaded subsequent purchaser as a party to the suit in question and no relief is sought against him in this regard. Therefore, suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable. 15. In the suit, alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration paid was not sought. 14. Plaintiff has not impleaded subsequent purchaser as a party to the suit in question and no relief is sought against him in this regard. Therefore, suit for specific performance itself was not maintainable. 15. In the suit, alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration paid was not sought. Even during pendency of this appeal, no such application has been made seeking amendment of the plaint. At any rate, as we have already held above that when the suit for specific performance was not maintainable, question of successfully maintaining relief for refund of the advance amount paid also does not arise. 16. Earlier transaction of sale by Smt. Akkayamma - defendant-1 in favour of Sri Munegowda was not brought to the notice of the Court below. We are of the view that conclusion of the Court below holding that plaintiff had failed to establish due execution of agreement and hence was not entitled for the relief of specific performance cannot be found fault with. The conclusion reached by the Court below gets fortified in view of the document now made available for perusal of the Court and the admitted factual position that emerges to the effect that on the date of institution of the suit, defendants-1 and 2 were not owners of the property as they had transferred the same by way of sale on 26.07.1995 by way of registered sale deed. Hence, points formulated are accordingly answered. In the result, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli in O.S.No.49/2006 dated 07.07.2006 is hereby affirmed.