JUDGMENT : The captioned regular first appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 passed in O.S.755/1993 by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, in dismissing the suit for specific performance. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: 3(a) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff claimed that the first respondent is a registered charitable trust and defendants 2 to 8 are its Trustees. The defendant No.1-Trust formed a residential layout in Survey Nos.22, 23 and 24 of Bhupasandra Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, and offered to sell the suit site and in terms of negotiation, defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.3 executed suit agreement vide Ex.P1 on 13.11.1987 for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that he has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. 3(b) The plaintiff has further alleged in the plaint that the defendants having agreed to execute the sale deed, however did not come forward to do so and went on postponing by stating that the BDA is yet to sanction the layout. On 17.8.1992, the defendant by registered letter communicated that layout is approved and requested the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff claims that he immediately replied on 26.8.1992 expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and requested to intimate the date and place of registration. 3(c) The plaintiff claims that defendants having issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to come forward for registration of site, started registering sites in favour of different persons by collecting excess amount and therefore, was compelled to file the present suit for specific performance of the contract. 3(d) On receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants 1 and 2 stoutly denied the authority of defendant No.3 alone in executing the suit agreement and therefore, contended that the suit agreement executed by defendant No.3 would not bind the Trust. Defendants 1 and 2 also further disputed the alleged payment of Rs.40,000/- towards sale consideration and the transaction pertaining to site No.11 under suit agreement vide Ex.P1. Defendants 1 and 2 stoutly denied the authority of defendant No.3 alone in executing the suit agreement and therefore, contended that the suit agreement executed by defendant No.3 would not bind the Trust. Defendants 1 and 2 also further disputed the alleged payment of Rs.40,000/- towards sale consideration and the transaction pertaining to site No.11 under suit agreement vide Ex.P1. The defendant 1 and 2 contended that layout was sanctioned by the BDA in the year 1992 and therefore, it is inconceivable as to how site No.11 could have been agreed to be sold under 1987 agreement. On these set of defence, defendants 1 and 2 claimed that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought in the plaint in respect of site No.11. 3(e) Defendant No.3 filed independent written statement and admitted execution of an agreement but however, specifically contended that as on the date of execution of the suit agreement, the suit schedule property was not in existence and no schedule was incorporated in the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. Therefore, alleged that the schedule incorporated in the suit agreement is forged and as such the suit agreement vide Ex.P1 is a fabricated document. Defendant No.3 also disputed the sale consideration and contended that Rs.40,000/- paid under the suit agreement was towards earnest money and therefore, claimed that the actual sale consideration was to be worked out after formation of the layout. 3(f) The Trial Court based on rival contentions framed the following issues: "1. Does the plaintiff prove the due execution of agreement for sale on Rs.40,000/- the suit property by the defendants on 13.11.1987? 2. Does the plaintiff prove his ever readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the specific performance? 4. Whether defendant No.1 bound by the suit agreement under law? Addl Issues: Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 prove that the suit is barred by the law of limitation?" 3(g)The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW.1 and examined one independent witness as P.W.2 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to 11. The defendants in support of their contentions, examined Defendant No.4 as D.W.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to D8. The defendants in support of their contentions, examined Defendant No.4 as D.W.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to D8. 3(h) The learned Judge having examined the ocular and documentary evidence as well as pleadings has held that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and there are material alterations made in the suit agreement by plaintiff and therefore, he is not entitled for equitable relief of specific performance of contract. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that though the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the signature on Ex.P1 and receipt of a sum of Rs.40,000/- by Defendant No.3 and also payment of Rs.10,000/- under Ex.P2, but however, has held that the suit agreement vide Ex.P1 does not contain the site number and therefore, was of the view that the document is tainted with interpolation. It is in this background, the learned Judge answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative by holding that suit agreement is proved but the same is tainted with interpolation. The learned Judge while dealing with Issue No.2 however answered the same in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. While examining Issue No.4, the learned Judge has answered the same in the negative by holding that defendant No.1 is not bound by suit agreement and on these set of reasoning, the learned Judge has proceeded to dismiss the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has filed this regular first appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo would strenuously argue and contend that the judgment rendered by the Trial Court suffers from serious infirmities. He would further contend that defendant No.4 has not at all filed written statement and therefore, the allegation that there was insertion of schedule vide suit agreement Ex.P1 was not at all tenable. On account of death of defendant No.3, the written statement filed by defendant No.3 cannot be looked into. He would further contend that defendants 1 and 2 who have filed independent written statement have not at all alleged in regard to insertion of schedule in the suit agreement. On account of death of defendant No.3, the written statement filed by defendant No.3 cannot be looked into. He would further contend that defendants 1 and 2 who have filed independent written statement have not at all alleged in regard to insertion of schedule in the suit agreement. He would strenuously argue and contend that the entire ocular evidence of D.W.1 has to be discarded for want of authorisation on behalf of other defendants. He would also take strong exception to the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the material on record. The minute details in regard to discrepancies of figures as found in the schedule attached to the suit agreement and the figures mentioned in the remaining portion of the suit agreement are not at all found in the pleadings nor the allegations in regard to above said discrepancies was deposed in ocular evidence and was also not canvassed while addressing final arguments and therefore, he would contend that the learned Judge for the first time has ventured into examining all these insignificant details and therefore, the dismissal of suit on the basis of the above said facts has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil .vs. Guddappa [KANTLJ-2009-1-547]; (ii) Abubakar Abdul Inamdhar(dead) by Lrs and Ors. vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar and Others[ AIR 1996 SC 112 ]; (iii) B.R. Mulani .vs. A.B. Aswathanarayana and others [ AIR 1993 KAR 257 ]; (iv) Vimalabai .vs. Babu and others [2003(2) Kar.L.J.301] (v) Traders Syndicate .vs. Union of India[ AIR 1983 CAL 337 ] (vi) United India Insurance Company Limited .vs. Manjamma and others [ 2008(4) Kar.L.J. 756 . 6. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil .vs. Guddappa, Laws(Kar)-2008-8-53, KANTLJ-2009-1-547 he would contend that the Division Bench of this Court has held that any amount of evidence led by a party who has not filed written statement cannot be looked into. Therefore, placing reliance on the principles laid down by Division Bench contends that the ocular evidence of D.W.1 is inadmissible in evidence. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abubakar Abdul Inamdhar(dead) by Lrs and Ors. Therefore, placing reliance on the principles laid down by Division Bench contends that the ocular evidence of D.W.1 is inadmissible in evidence. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abubakar Abdul Inamdhar(dead) by Lrs and Ors. vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar and Others, AIR 1996 SC 112 wherein similar view is expressed. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of B.R. Mulani .vs. A.B. Aswathanarayana and others and contend that though plea of interpolation was raised in regard to the schedule annexed to the suit agreement however no issue is framed in this regard. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Mulani's case he would contend that the plea is deemed to have been abandoned. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Vimalabai .vs. Babu and others, 2003(2) Kar.L.J.301 and the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Traders Syndicate .vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 CAL 337 the defendants. 7. Referring to all these significant details, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the learned Judge having held that due execution of the suit agreement is proved however erred in holding that there is an insertion of schedule subsequently and that the present suit is filed by playing fraud and mischief. He would strenuously argue and contend that there is absolutely no rebuttal evidence to doubt the transaction. He would further contend that what the Trial Court has missed out in the present case on hand is that the plaintiff has not only succeeded in establishing the due execution of the suit agreement but has also succeeded in establishing Ex.P2 which is an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- paid much before the suit agreement was executed. He would contend that the signatures of defendant No.3 on the suit agreement is proved and the other clinching evidence would clearly indicate that it is a genuine transaction and therefore, would submit that the finding recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 is perverse and palpably erroneous and therefore, would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5 repelling the contentions of plaintiff would however support the judgment rendered by the learned Judge. He would lay main thrust on the schedule annexed to the suit agreement. 8. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5 repelling the contentions of plaintiff would however support the judgment rendered by the learned Judge. He would lay main thrust on the schedule annexed to the suit agreement. He would contend that the schedule is fraudulently inserted by the plaintiff and this material fact can be gathered from the clinching rebuttal evidence adduced by defendants. He would submit that as on 1989, the layout was not approved, therefore, the schedule cannot indicate that the transaction pertains to site No.11, when the same was not in existence as on the date of execution of the suit agreement. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court was justified in doubting the transaction under the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. He would also insist this Court to examine the minute details which would clearly indicate that suit agreement is prepared at different point of time and several insertions would probabalise the defence set up by the plaintiff. He has seriously disputed the numerical and some words in the suit agreement which according to him with bare eyes show that different fonts are used. He would further point out to this Court that since layout was formed in 1991, the schedule is inserted by the plaintiff without knowledge of the defendants and therefore, he contends that it is a tampered document. He would specifically contend that the first signature found on the last page is secured by the plaintiff with fraudulent intent. 9. Learned counsel for defendants would further contend that the finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issue is palpably erroneous and therefore, would request this Court to reverse the said finding. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ravider Kumar Sharma .vs. The State of Assam and others, AIR 1999 SC 3571 . He would further contend that the suit was filed on 19.1.1993 and defendants 4 to 8 were impleaded on 17.10.2003 while the suit agreement is dated 13.11.1987 and therefore, he would contend that the learned Judge ought to have answered additional issue in the affirmative and ought to have dismissed the suit even on the ground of limitation. He would further contend that the suit was filed on 19.1.1993 and defendants 4 to 8 were impleaded on 17.10.2003 while the suit agreement is dated 13.11.1987 and therefore, he would contend that the learned Judge ought to have answered additional issue in the affirmative and ought to have dismissed the suit even on the ground of limitation. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following judgments: (1) Janab M.H. Yakoob(died) and others .vs. M. Krishnan(died) and others [AIR 1992 MADRAS 80] (2) Ram Khilona and others .vs. Sardar and others [ AIR 2002 SC 2548 ] (3) Loonkaran Sethia etc. .vs. Mr. Ivan E. John and others etc. [ AIR 1977 SC 336 ] (4) N. Narayanaswamy .vs. Madanlal [AIR 1982 Kant 227] (5) Nathu Lal and others .vs. Gomti Kuar and others [ AIR 1940 PC 160 ] (6) Valiammal Rangarao Ramachar .vs. Muthukumaraswamy Goundar and another. [ (1982) 3 SCC 508 ] (7) S.K. Panchaksharam Mudaliar(died) and others .vs. T.V. Kannaiah Naidu and others [AIR 1986 MADRAS 156] (8) Ramprasad Dagaduram .vs. Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala and others [1967 SC 278] (9) B. Krishnappa, since by his L.Rs. .vs. Sri.Urban John Lewis, since deceased by his L.Rs.(RFA.No.783/2003 c/w RFA.Nos.780, 781 and 782/2003 disposed of on 4.12.2009) (10) K.C. Bheemaiah .vs. Kakamada A. Kuttappa and others [MANU/KA/0529/2003] 10. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and perused the lower Court records. 11. The following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that plaintiff is guilty of insertion of schedule in the suit agreement and therefore, there is an interpolation in the suit agreement by practicing fraud is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary to the clinching evidence on record? Yes (2) Whether the Trial Court erred in holding that the suit agreement would not bind defendant No.1? Yes (3)Whether the finding of the Trial Court on additional Issue No.1 holding that the suit is in time suffers from any infirmities and warrants interference? No. 12. Regarding Point No.1: 12(a) The plaintiff's specific case is that defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.3 has offered to sell site No.11 measuring 40 x 50 situated at Bhupasandra Village, Bengaluru North, formed in Survey Nos.22, 23 and 24 for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. This agreement is dated 13.11.1987. No. 12. Regarding Point No.1: 12(a) The plaintiff's specific case is that defendant No.1 represented by defendant No.3 has offered to sell site No.11 measuring 40 x 50 situated at Bhupasandra Village, Bengaluru North, formed in Survey Nos.22, 23 and 24 for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. This agreement is dated 13.11.1987. In the said agreement, there is specific recital that the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- is paid. 12(b) During trial, plaintiff has narrated his close proximity with K. Venkatarama Shastry who is the founder of first defendant-Trust. Plaintiff has produced receipt executed by the original founder of first defendant-Trust i.e. K. Venkatarama Shastry acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10,000/- as an advance amount. This document is marked as Ex.P2. This receipt is dated 17.2.1982. The Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that this receipt is proved by plaintiff. Therefore, what can be inferred from this document is that plaintiff has in fact assisted and has contributed a sum of Rs.10,000/- way back in the year 1982 and this amount was utilized by the original founder K. Venkatrama Shastry to develop the land and form a layout. 12(c) This Court has to examine the receipt of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.P2 along with the legal notice issued by defendant No.1-Trust as per Ex.P4 which is dated 17.8.1992. It would be relevant for this Court to cull out the said notice, which reads as under: "Please refer to our earlier intimation to you, that the Bangalore Development Authority has approved the Layout and work Order has also been issued. In pursuance of the same, we are executing the work which is now under completion. The Trust has now decided to sell by way of allotment the sites to the members. You are requested to contact the undersigned and pay the balance of sale consideration, get the sites registered in your name within 30th August, 1992, I failing which, please note that the same would be allotted to other persons. No further notice will be given to you." 12(d) If Exs.P2 and P4 are examined, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute in respect of transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.1. This can be gathered from the stand taken by defendant No.3 in the written statement. No further notice will be given to you." 12(d) If Exs.P2 and P4 are examined, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute in respect of transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.1. This can be gathered from the stand taken by defendant No.3 in the written statement. Para 2 of the written statement filed by defendant No.3 would throw lot of light as to what is the actual controversy between the parties. It would be useful for this Court to cull Para 2 of the written statement: "2. The plaintiff is an Advocate and he made this defendant believe that he can sign the paper. The agreement was that this defendant should try to convince the first defendant to sell the property. The sale consideration was to be fixed on a subsequent date after the layout was completed. The sale consideration was to be finalized depending upon the property to be sold. The sum of Rs.40,000/- was given only as earnest money. The agreement was in reality an agreement to enter into an agreement on subsequent date after layout is formed for the details of the property to be worked out and for a future consideration to be worked out." 12(e) If para 2 of the written statement is examined, it can be inferred that defendants are not denying the suit agreement but probably there is a dispute in regard to sale consideration. Defendant No.3 has claimed that an amount of Rs.40,000/- received from plaintiff is towards earnest money. Now, it would be equally important to examine the stand taken by defendants 1 and 2. Though defendants 1 and 2 have denied the suit agreement, the stand taken at Para 11 of the written statement by defendants 1 and 2 would be relevant to find out the actual lis between the parties. The same is culled out as under: "11. The Trust has already spent Rs.15,00,000/- as expenses and it has to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the B.D.A. if the B.D.A. does not insist on escalated charges. However, if the B.D.A. were to send revised estimate, the trust has to pay the same. The same is culled out as under: "11. The Trust has already spent Rs.15,00,000/- as expenses and it has to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the B.D.A. if the B.D.A. does not insist on escalated charges. However, if the B.D.A. were to send revised estimate, the trust has to pay the same. The trust basically being established for the purposes of Sanskrit School and Vedik School and the only resources is by the sale of these sites as ordered by the Government while granting permission under the provision of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and it is therefore inconceiveable how the trust could offer to sell a site of the measurement of 40' X 50' in full sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- to the plaintiff. The amount of R.40,000/- stated in the Agreement therefore is not the full sale price, it is only an earnest money in the context. Therefore, these defendants submit that the Agreement dt. 13.11.1987 is not enforceable, binding on the trust and the suit is hopelessly barred by time and the same is liable to be dismissed." On perusal of Para 11 of the written statement, it can be inferred that defendants 1 and 2 are denying the transaction entered between plaintiff and defendant No.1 through defendant No.3 as they are expecting further amount to complete the transaction to meet out the escalated charges required to be paid to the Bengaluru Development Authority. 12(f) Therefore, if the pleadings at Para 11 of the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 and pleadings at Para 2 of the written statement filed by defendant No.3 are examined, only one conclusion can be drawn that defendants having entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff want to retract from the transaction as they are expecting higher sale consideration. It is in this background, defendants have tried to take advantage and have also made a feeble attempt by contending that the schedule is inserted fraudulently by the plaintiff. It would be quite interesting to examine the stand taken by defendant No.3 in his written statement. At para 1 of the written statement, defendant No.3 has contended that if agreement contains the schedule, then its insertion is without consent of defendant No.3 and therefore, claims that suit agreement vide Ex.P1 is a forged and fabricated document. It would be quite interesting to examine the stand taken by defendant No.3 in his written statement. At para 1 of the written statement, defendant No.3 has contended that if agreement contains the schedule, then its insertion is without consent of defendant No.3 and therefore, claims that suit agreement vide Ex.P1 is a forged and fabricated document. It would be useful for this Court to refer to Para 5 of the written statement which reads as under: "5. This defendant has not received nor has seen the agreement produced before this Hon'ble court and as such can not say as on now as to whether the agreement produced is the same as the one that has been signed by him. This defendant admits signature on certain papers describing itself as an agreement. But that paper did not have a schedule in it." 12(g) On reading para 5 of written statement filed by defendant No.3 (Page No.16), it is forthcoming that defendant No.3 has specifically claimed that he has not seen the suit agreement which is produced before the Court and therefore, contends that he is not sure as to whether the suit agreement which is produced is the one which he has signed. If defendant No.3 had no occasion to have a look at the suit agreement which is produced before the Court, then the averment made at Para 1 of the written statement that the schedule annexed to the suit agreement is without consent and the same is a forged and fabricated document falsifies the entire narrative set up by the defendants in their defence. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that defendants have agreed to sell site No.11 and therefore, only with an oblique motive and to make a wrongful gain have set up a false defence that the schedule is inserted by plaintiff. 12(h) If the schedule is inserted and the suit transaction is disputed then this Court is unable to understand as to how defendant No.2 could have issued a notice as per Ex.P4 calling upon the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration and get the site registered. Therefore, the fact that defendant No.2 had issued a legal notice as per Ex.P4 presupposes that the suit agreement entered into by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 was concluded and the transaction was in respect of site No.11. Therefore, the fact that defendant No.2 had issued a legal notice as per Ex.P4 presupposes that the suit agreement entered into by defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 was concluded and the transaction was in respect of site No.11. The contention of defendants that the layout was approved only in the year 1991 and therefore, the schedule annexed to the plaint was not in existence cannot be acceded to. Their own document at Exs.D3 and D4 would demonstrate that they had commenced with development of lands and defendants had remitted the charges way back in 1988 and had also submitted for approval of layout. Even if layout was approved in 1991, it is quite natural that the developer would enter into transaction by showing the layout plan to the customers. Insofar as plaintiff is concerned, the evidence on record would indicate that he was familiar with the founder of the Trust and therefore, the entire theory of defendants that schedule is falsely inserted is misconceived. 12(i) This Court would also find that defendant No.2 vide Ex.P4 called upon plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration and get the site registered on or before 30.8.1992 failing which the plaintiff was notified that the site would be allotted to other persons. The defendants strangely have not disclosed even in Ex.P4 the particulars of the site which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 as well as other defendants are absolutely silent in regard to the particulars of the site which was agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff. Deceased defendant No.3 in his written statement has admitted the execution of suit agreement as per Ex.P1. Though Defendants 1 and 2 have disputed the suit agreement in the written statement, Ex.P4 which is a legal notice issued by defendant No.2 would come to the aid of the plaintiff and it has to be presumed that defendants 1 and 2 are also not disputing the suit agreement. If defendants 1 and 2 are seriously disputing the transaction on the ground defendant No.3 had no authority to unilaterally execute a suit agreement without the consent of other trustees, then defendant No.2 would not have issued the notice as per Ex.P4 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration. The signatures of defendant No.3 on the suit agreement are admitted. Receipt of Rs.40,000/- is admitted. The signatures of defendant No.3 on the suit agreement are admitted. Receipt of Rs.40,000/- is admitted. The learned Judge has recorded a categorical finding that due execution of suit agreement is proved except schedule to the suit agreement. This Court has also given anxious consideration to the suit agreement. On the last page of the agreement defendant No.3 has put his signatures at two places and the said signatures are not seriously disputed by deceased defendant No.3 in his written statement. Defendant No.2 having denied the suit agreement has not stepped into the witness box. The defendants have entered into similar transactions with other customers and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of defendants to produce similar suit agreements relating to other sites to demonstrate that transactions entered into by defendants did not include schedule. The defendants, for the reasons best known to them, have withheld these transactions which would have enabled the Court to appreciate the controversy between the parties. The best piece of evidence is not placed on record by the defendants and therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against defendants. 12(j) Therefore, on meticulous examination of pleadings averred in the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 and the written statement filed by defendant No.3 coupled with documentary evidence vide Ex.P4 would clearly establish that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that defendants offered to sell site No.11 and accordingly, executed suit agreement vide Ex.P1 by receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. It would be relevant to mention at this juncture that defendant No.3 has disputed only the schedule and therefore, the recital in Ex.P1 that entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- is paid stands proved by the plaintiff. In view of the foregoing reasons, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. 13. Regarding Point No.2: Defendants 1 and 2 have denied the authority of defendant No.3. Defendants 1 and 2 have denied the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. Having denied the suit agreement it was incumbent on defendant No.2 to lead rebuttal evidence and substantiate their claim that there was no transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.1-Trust. Though there is denial, plaintiff has discharged his burden and has proved that the transaction is in fact entered into by defendant No.3 on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust. The legal notice issued by defendant No.2 would clinch the above said controversy. Though there is denial, plaintiff has discharged his burden and has proved that the transaction is in fact entered into by defendant No.3 on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust. The legal notice issued by defendant No.2 would clinch the above said controversy. If defendant No.2 is seriously disputing the transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.3 on the ground that other trustees are not parties to the suit agreement, the legal notice issued by defendant No.2 calling upon plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration would falsify the statement made in the written statement. The second instance which would negate the theory set up by defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement can be gathered from the ocular evidence of defendant No.4- Prabhakar. Defendant No.4 has deposed on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust and has tried to defend the Trust by contending that there is a fraudulent insertion of schedule to the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. If defendant No.3 had no authority, the ocular evidence of defendant No.4 also indicates that he has deposed on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust without filing written statement. All these significant details would indicate that defendant No.3 during his life time executed the suit agreement as per Ex.P1 on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust and the payment of Rs.40,000/- was also received on behalf of defendant No.1-Trust. It is in this background, this Court is of the view that the suit agreement would bind defendant No.1- Trust. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in affirmative. 14. Regarding Point No.3: The defendants claim that defendants 4 to 8 were impleaded on 17.10.2003 and the agreement is dated 13.11.1987 and the suit was filed on 29.1.1993. Defendants specifically claim that while filing the written statement at paragraph 10, defendants 1 and 2 had furnished the details of the Trustees and therefore, defendants are contending that suit is barred by limitation as defendants 4 and 8 were impleaded in 2003. It would be useful for this Court to refer to Ex.P12. Para 6 (a) and (b) reads as follows: "6. (a) During the lifetime of the present trustee. Sri.K.Venkatarama Sastry, he shall be the sole trustee. He may however nominate any other person to act for him. He shall have power to sell, mortgage, lease end do such other acts that are necessary for the carrying out the objects of the trust. (a) During the lifetime of the present trustee. Sri.K.Venkatarama Sastry, he shall be the sole trustee. He may however nominate any other person to act for him. He shall have power to sell, mortgage, lease end do such other acts that are necessary for the carrying out the objects of the trust. (b) After his lifetime, his wife Smt.K.V.Jayalakshamma shall be the sole trustee during her own lifetime, on the same terms." On perusal of clause 6(a) and 6(b) of the Trust Deed vide Ex.P12, it is clearly evident that after the death of sole Trustee K.Venkatarama Shastry his wife Smt.K.V. Jayalakshamma i.e. defendant No.2 is the sole Trustee of defendant No.1-Trust. From the tenor of the recitals in the registered Trust deed, what emerges is that the children of late K. Venkatarama Shastry and defendant No.2 are only beneficiaries. On reading clause 6(c) and (d), this Court would find that the sole trustee-K. Venkatarama Shastry has also contemplated the order of succession to the post of sole trustee after the demise of defendant No.2. Therefore, the present suit which was rightly filed against defendants 1 to 4 is not barred by limitation. Only by way of abundant caution the other beneficiaries are also included. Therefore, the proviso to Section 21(1) of Limitation Act would come to the aid of plaintiff and subsequent impleadment of defendants on account of bonafide mistake under good faith has to be deemed to have been instituted on the date of institution of the suit. The proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act confers a discretion on the Court to allow impleadment of a party from the date of filing of the suit if the Court is satisfied that initial omission was due to a mistake made in good faith. In the present case on hand, the impleadment of defendants 4 to 8 has to be deemed to have been instituted on the date of filing of the suit. 15. In the light of the findings recorded by this Court on Points 1 and 2, the following conclusions are arrived at: (a) The finding recorded by the Trial Court while answering Issue No.1 that plaintiff has inserted schedule to the suit agreement as per Ex.P1 is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary to Ex.P4 wherein defendant No.2 as sole trustee of defendant No.1-Trust has called upon the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration. If defendants 1 and 2 are seriously disputing the authority of defendant No.3 in executing suit agreement vide Ex.P1, then defendant No.2 would not have issued the notice on 17.8.1992 calling upon plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration. This document would clinch the issue and would establish the transaction pertaining to Site No.11 as per schedule. The defendants cannot approbate and reprobate and set up false defence that schedule to suit agreement is inserted. (b) The finding of the Trial Court that the suit agreement vide Ex.P1 is tainted with interpolation and therefore, Ex.P1 is a void document is perverse and palpably erroneous and contrary to the clinching evidence on record. The legal notice as per Ex.P4 coupled with written statement filed by defendant No.3 admitting due execution of suit agreement vide Ex.P1 and also the payment of Rs.10,000/- way back in 1982 as per Ex.P2 would clearly establish the transaction. What the learned Judge has lost sight is that neither in the written statement nor during trial, the defendants have disclosed the site particulars which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants who have tried to take advantage inspite of receipt of entire sale consideration under Ex.P1. Therefore, the finding on Issue No.1 that the schedule is inserted at the instance of the plaintiff is in absence of rebuttal evidence and also contrary to Ex.P4 and several categorical admissions given in written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No.3. (c) The finding of the Trial Court that the suit agreement does not bind defendant No.1-Trust is palpably erroneous. The defendant No.2 as per Ex.P4 has called upon plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration. This document would clinch the issue and clearly show that the transaction as per Ex.P1 was concluded and therefore, the suit agreement though executed by defendant No.3 would bind defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 who is the sole trustee of defendant No.1-trust as per clause 6(b) of Ex.P12(trust deed) has issued legal notice calling upon the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration. What emerges from the clinching evidence adduced by plaintiff is that entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was paid apart from Rs.10,000/- which was paid to the original founder Sri.K.Venkatarama Shastry way back in 1982 as per Ex.P2. What emerges from the clinching evidence adduced by plaintiff is that entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was paid apart from Rs.10,000/- which was paid to the original founder Sri.K.Venkatarama Shastry way back in 1982 as per Ex.P2. On meticulous examination of the pleadings in the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No.3, it appears that defendants on account of additional expenses which they incurred while securing permission from BDA, in all probability were insisting additional sale consideration and it is in this background the defendants have tried to take advantage of the schedule annexed to the suit agreement vide Ex.P1. The allegation of interpolation is a serious allegation and no specific particulars are furnished in the written statement. The defendants have not led in any clinching evidence to prove the said allegation. Therefore, the said finding of the learned Judge is perverse and contrary to the material on record. 15(d) If the clinching evidence on record is meticulously examined, the conduct of defendants appears to be grossly unfair. The present case on hand is a fit case which warrants indulgence. As discussed above, plaintiff has in fact paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- way back in 1982 and the said payment is proved vide Ex.P-2. It clearly reveals that the original trustee Sri.K. Venkatarama Shastry, has received Rs.10,000/- and the same is utilized to develop the land and form sites. Apart from Rs.10,000/-, plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and the learned Judge has held that the suit agreement is proved and if the suit agreement is proved, it presupposes that the contents of the suit agreement also stand proved. In the suit agreement, there is a recital that the entire sale consideration is paid. Strangely, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not disclosed as to how much is the balance sale consideration that is due. If all these significant details are taken into consideration, this Court would find that the suit agreement is a valid agreement and defendants have miserably failed to highlight circumstances which would be sufficient to warrant rescission or cancellation of suit agreement. The suit agreement is conscionable in its terms and therefore, equity will have to be enforced. The learned Judge has not properly exercised discretion and has not taken into account the circumstances of the case, conduct of defendants and their respective interest under the contract. The suit agreement is conscionable in its terms and therefore, equity will have to be enforced. The learned Judge has not properly exercised discretion and has not taken into account the circumstances of the case, conduct of defendants and their respective interest under the contract. Refusing to exercise discretion in favour of plaintiff has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same has inflicted more injury on the plaintiff who has parted with substantial amount of Rs.10,000/- way back in 1982 and at the time of executing the suit agreement has parted with the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 13.11.1987. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in doubting the transaction suffers from perversity. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise judicial discretion and to direct specific performance. If the entire evidence on record is taken into consideration, it would be highly unreasonable to refuse to grant discretionary relief of specific performance in the present case on hand. 16. In view of the above said conclusions, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court suffers from perversity and is palpably erroneous and therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue No.1 insofar as allegation of interpolation and insertion of schedule in the suit agreement is not at all sustainable and the same is liable to be reversed by this Court. 17. The judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for defendants on the point of material alterations which would render the document void are not at all applicable to the present case on hand in the light of findings recorded by this Court while answering Points 1 and 2. Therefore, the principles laid down in AIR 1986 Madras 156, AIR 2002 SC 2458, AIR 1977 SC 336 ; and AIR 1992 KAR 227 are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. This Court on reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded a categorical finding that the allegation that the schedule is inserted by plaintiff is not substantiated and proved by defendants. If insertion is not proved as alleged by defendants, the question of declaring the suit agreement as void document on account of material alteration does not arise in the present case on hand. If insertion is not proved as alleged by defendants, the question of declaring the suit agreement as void document on account of material alteration does not arise in the present case on hand. It is in this background, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., .vs. Manjamma and Others, 2008(4) Kar.L.J.756 is applicable to the present case on hand. If the defendants have admitted due execution of the suit agreement vide Ex.P1 and if second defendant being the sole trustee has issued a legal notice vide Ex.P2 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration, the allegation that schedule to the suit agreement is tampered and inserted by the plaintiff stands falsified. 18. For the foregoing findings recorded on points 1 and 2 and conclusions recorded by this Court, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.7.2007 passed in O.S.755/1993 by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, is set aside and consequently, the suit is decreed: (a) directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of site bearing No.11 measuring 40' x 50' situated at Bhupasandra village, Bengaluru North Taluk, formed in Survey Nos.22, 23 and 24. (b) Office to draw the decree accordingly.