JUDGMENT : This is a defendants’ appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellants, arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.53/2014, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”), seeking for specific performance of the contract, by directing the defendant No.1 to execute a regular Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and getting it registered in respect of the suit schedule property and to deliver the possession and other reliefs. 2. The summary of the plaint of the plaintiff in the Trial Court (the present respondent) is that, on the date 07-08-2014, the first defendant (first appellant herein), for her legal necessities, i.e. to clear the old loan and for performance of the marriage of her daughter, entered into an agreement for sale of suit schedule property with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the said property bearing Survey No.226/1, measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas, situated at Arjunahally Village, Hosa Agrahara Village, K.R.Nagara Taluk, for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.12,42,000/-. Under the said agreement, on the same day, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-as an advance amount in the presence of the witnesses and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of executing the registered Sale Deed, which Sale Deed she agreed to execute and register whenever she was called upon to do so. She also agreed to get the survey sketch, encumbrance Certificate and other documents which were required for registration, at the earliest. It is further the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that, the first defendant, after executing an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff, with an intention to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, executed another registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 in favour of defendant No.2 -Sri. Subbanaika (appellant No.2 herein) with respect to the very same property and another property bearing Survey No.227/2 measuring 0.15 Guntas for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.5,63,000/-and thus the conduct of the defendant No.1 was to cheat the plaintiff. Subbanaika (appellant No.2 herein) with respect to the very same property and another property bearing Survey No.227/2 measuring 0.15 Guntas for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.5,63,000/-and thus the conduct of the defendant No.1 was to cheat the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, once again, within a month i.e. on the date 09-09-2014, the defendant No.1 executed another registered Release Deed in favour of the defendant No.2, who is none other than her own brother, for the same consideration amount of Rs.5,63,000/-. The plaintiff has further stated that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the promise under the contract by paying the balance sale consideration amount and to obtain the registered Sale Deed in her favour. The plaintiff has stated that on the date 09-09-2014, she demanded the defendant No.1 to execute a registered Sale Deed in her favour by receiving the remaining consideration amount, for which, the defendant No.1 orally stated that, she had already executed a Release Deed in favour of her brother. Then the plaintiff approached the Sub-Registrar’s Office and found that defendant No.1 had registered a Sale Deed and also a Release Deed in favour of the defendant No.2. The plaintiff, once again, approached the defendant No.1, asking her to execute the Sale Deed by taking the balance sale consideration, however, the said request and demand was refused by the said defendant No.1. This made the plaintiff to cause a legal notice dated 17-09-2014 upon the defendant No.1, calling upon her to execute a registered Sale Deed as per the agreement for sale dated 07-08-2014. 3. Despite service of notice upon her, the defendant No.1 did not reply to the said legal notice, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the suit in question against the defendants for the relief of specific performance. 4. In response to the summons served upon them, both the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their Written Statement, in which, they denied the whole plaint averments. The first defendant took a specific contention that, on the date 07-08-2014, she had borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-from the plaintiff for her legal necessities and at that point of time, the plaintiff had taken her signatures on blank Stamp papers, with a promise to return the same after repayment of the loan amount by the defendant No.1. The first defendant took a specific contention that, on the date 07-08-2014, she had borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-from the plaintiff for her legal necessities and at that point of time, the plaintiff had taken her signatures on blank Stamp papers, with a promise to return the same after repayment of the loan amount by the defendant No.1. In the same way, for having borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/-from one Sri. A.S. Shivashankar, the uncle of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also took her signature on blank Stamp papers with a promise to return the same on repayment of the loan amount with interest. The defendant No.1 has called the alleged agreement for sale as a created document by the plaintiff, by taking advantage of her signatures obtained on blank Stamp papers. Defendant No.1 further contended that since the loan amount borrowed by her from the plaintiff and Sri.A.S. Shivashankar (uncle of the plaintiff) was not sufficient to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter, she had executed a registered agreement for sale dated 22-08-2014 in favour of second defendant, who is none else than her brother and also executed a release Deed as advised by the legal expert instead of executing a registered Sale Deed, in order to save the Stamp duty. With this, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 07-08-2014 1st defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for sum of Rs.12,42,000/-and received sale advance of Rs.1,25,000/-and agreed to execute the registered Sale Deed, whenever plaintiff called upon her to execute the registered Sale Deed? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract? 3. Whether plaintiff further proves that registered release Deed dated: 09-09-2014 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff? 4. Whether plaintiff further proves that she is entitle for the relief of Specific performance of the contract dated:07-08-2014? 5. What order or decree?” 6. In support of her plaint, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked five documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 -Smt. Bhagyamma examined herself as DW-1 and got marked five documents from Exs.D-1 to D-5. 7. 5. What order or decree?” 6. In support of her plaint, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked five documents from Exs.P-1 to P-5. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 -Smt. Bhagyamma examined herself as DW-1 and got marked five documents from Exs.D-1 to D-5. 7. After hearing both side, the Trial Court, by its impugned judgment and decree dated 31-01-2017, while answering all the issues in the affirmative, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost and directed the first defendant to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within sixty days from the date of the said judgment. In case of her failure to do so, the plaintiff could get it done through the Court. Further, it was declared by the Trial Court that the registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 and registered release Deed dated 09-09-2014 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) and learned counsel for respondent (plaintiff) are physically appearing before the Court. 9. The Trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels from both side and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment. 11. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) in his argument submitted that, the first defendant had put her signatures to a loan document upon two blank Stamp papers, however, the plaintiff substituted one signed sheet (Stamp paper) in them by another e-Stamp paper and got printed an agreement for sale which had never been intended and executed by the defendant No.1. He vehemently submitted that, it is for the said reason, the first two pages (first sheet) have not been signed by any party including the defendant No.1. However, the said document bears the signatures of the parties including defendant No.1 only at page 4 of the second sheet (last page) of the said document. He vehemently submitted that, it is for the said reason, the first two pages (first sheet) have not been signed by any party including the defendant No.1. However, the said document bears the signatures of the parties including defendant No.1 only at page 4 of the second sheet (last page) of the said document. This itself demonstrates that the plaintiff has misused the blank signed Stamp papers obtained by her from the defendant No.1. He also contended that the e-Stamp paper at Ex.P-1, which, according to plaintiff, is an agreement for sale, is described as a ‘Bond’, as such, it is not an agreement for sale as contended by the plaintiff. Drawing the attention of the Court to the several provisions of law relating to the Stamp duty and e-Stamp papers, the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) submitted that, Rule 11, Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 22 and Rule 25 of the Karnataka Stamp (Payment of Duty by Means of E-Stamping) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the PDES Rules of 2009”) are applicable to the case on hand. Learned counsel further submitted that, the same establishes that sheet No.1 of Ex.P-1 was substituted by the plaintiff without notice, knowledge and consent of the defendant No.1, only to show that it is an agreement for sale of the immovable property. It is for the said reason the said sheet No.1 does not bear the signatures of the parties to the alleged agreement including defendant No.1. Learned counsel also contended that, with respect to the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration by declaring that the registered sale agreement entered into between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 dated 22-08-2014 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, had no corresponding issue framed by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court, without noticing these vital points, has decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which deserves to be dismissed by allowing the present appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) addressed a very brief argument. Since his argument was very brief and was not meeting several of the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) in his argument, the Court has recorded the arguments of the said learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) on the date 22-06-2023, which is reproduced herein below in its entirety. Since his argument was very brief and was not meeting several of the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) in his argument, the Court has recorded the arguments of the said learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) on the date 22-06-2023, which is reproduced herein below in its entirety. “The points of argument of the learned counsel for the respondent was that, the defendant No.1 had the knowledge that Ex.P-1 was an agreement for sale, otherwise, she would not have executed the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 and also relinquishment/ release Deed as per Ex.P-3 in favour of defendant No.2. He submitted that the contention of the defendant No.1 and her response in the cross-examination that she has signed every document including the written statement, alleged agreement of sale, Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, all in blank shows her conduct that intentionally she is telling a lie. He also submitted that the contract of specific performance can be oral also. In that regard, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Nanjappa (D) by Lrs. Vs. R.A. Hameed alias Ameersab (D) by Lrs. and Anr. reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 1099.” 14. In the light of the above, the points that arise for consideration of this Court in this appeal are: [i] Whether the plaintiff has proved that the first defendant entered into an agreement with her on the date 07-08-2014, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.12,42,000/-and received a sale advance amount of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-from the plaintiff and further agreed to execute a registered Sale Deed whenever the plaintiff would call upon her to execute the same? [ii] Whether the first defendant has proved that the alleged agreement at Ex.P-1 is not an agreement for sale and that she has not executed any agreement for sale, much less the one at Ex.P-1 in favour of the plaintiff? [iii] Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract? [iv] Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 15. [iii] Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract? [iv] Whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 15. It is the plaint averment as well the evidence of the plaintiff -Smt. Sheela, who got herself examined as PW-1, that the first appellant herein (first defendant in the Original Suit) for her legal necessities, i.e. to clear the old loan and for performance of the marriage of her daughter, entered into an agreement with her (PW-1) on the date 07-08-2014 for the sale of the suit schedule property in her favour for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.12,42,000/-. As such, under the said agreement, on the same day, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-as advance amount in the presence of witnesses and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount at the time of executing the registered Sale Deed, which she agreed to execute and register whenever she was called upon to do so. It is also the evidence of PW-1 that the first defendant, after executing an agreement for sale in her favour, as above, with an intention to defeat her claim (of PW-1) executed another registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 in favour of defendant No.2. -Sri. Subbanaika (appellant No.2 herein) with respect to the very same property and another property bearing Sy.No.227/2, for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.5,63,000/-. It is further the evidence of PW-1 that, once again, within a month, i.e. on the date 09-09-2014, the defendant No.1 executed another registered Release Deed in favour of the defendant No.2, who is none other than her own brother, for the sale consideration amount of Rs.5,63,000/-. PW-1 also contended that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the promise under the contract by paying the balance sale consideration amount and to obtain the registered Sale Deed in her favour. Her demand with the first defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed since went futile, she was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 17-09-2014 upon the defendant No.1, calling upon her to execute a registered Sale Deed as per the agreement for sale. However, the defendant No.1 did not reply to the said legal notice, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the suit under consideration. However, the defendant No.1 did not reply to the said legal notice, which constrained the plaintiff to institute the suit under consideration. In support of her contention, the plaintiff got produced and marked a document shown to be an unregistered sale agreement as Ex.P-1; a certified copy of the registered sale agreement shown to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 at Ex.P-2; a certified copy of the registered Release Deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 at Ex.P-3; a copy of the record of rights and tenancy Certificate (RTC) at Ex.P-4; and a copy of legal notice said to have been sent by her to defendant No.1, at Ex.P-5. The plaintiff got examined one Sri.K.J. Jayarama as PW-2, who, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that, he was the attesting witness of the sale agreement dated 07-08-2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, for a sale consideration of a sum of Rs.12,42,000/-and out of the said amount, the defendant No.1 received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-while executing the sale agreement. The witness has identified his signature in Ex.P-1 at Ex.P1(b). He also stated that along with him one more witness by name Mahadevanaika was also present and put his signature as a witness which he has identified at Ex.P-1(c). The plaintiff also got examined one more person by name Sri. Arjuna as PW-3, who, in his examination-in-chief has stated that, as a Document Writer, he knows about the sale agreement dated 07-08-2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.12,42,000/-, out of which, the defendant No.1 had received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-as an advance amount. He too has stated about the presence of PW-2 along with him at the time of the parties executing the agreement. The witness has identified the said agreement at Ex.P-1. All these witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the defendants’ side. 16. He too has stated about the presence of PW-2 along with him at the time of the parties executing the agreement. The witness has identified the said agreement at Ex.P-1. All these witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined from the defendants’ side. 16. The defendant No.1 -Smt. Bhagyamma also got herself examined as DW-1, who, in her examination-in-chief, has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in her Written Statement and contended that, at no point of time, she has executed the alleged sale agreement dated 07-08-2014 with respect to suit schedule property and has not received any advance amount towards the alleged sale consideration. On the other hand, she contended that on the date 07-08-2014, she had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-from the plaintiff for her legal necessities. At that point of time, the plaintiff had taken her signatures on blank Stamp papers with a promise to return the same after repayment of the loan amount by defendant No.1. She also contended that, in the same way, for having borrowed another sum of Rs.75,000/-from one Sri. A.S. Shivashankar who is the uncle of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had also taken her signatures on blank Stamp papers with the same promise to return the same on repayment of the loan amount with interest. DW-1 called the alleged agreement of sale at Ex.P-1 as a created document by the plaintiff and misuse of her signatures obtained on the blank Stamp papers. She further stated that since the loan amount availed by her from the plaintiff and from one Sri.A.S. Shivashankar was not sufficient to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter, she executed a registered agreement for sale dated 22-08-2014 in favour of her brother, who is the second defendant in the suit and also executed a Release Deed in favour of defendant No.2, as advised by the legal experts in order to save the Stamp duty, provided the registered Sale Deed was executed. Stating that the above said Sri.A.S. Shivashankar had instituted an Original Suit against them, in a competent Civil Court, she (DW-1) got produced and marked a certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.452/2014 at Ex.D-1; certified copy of the Written Statement filed by herself in the said Original Suit at Ex.D-2; copy of the alleged agreement for sale dated 07-08-2014 produced by the plaintiff in the other suit, at Ex.D-3; a certified copy of the evidence of the plaintiff therein, i.e. Sri.A.S. Shivashankar in the other suit at Ex.D-4; marriage invitation card of her daughter at Ex.D-5. 17. In the cross-examination of PW-1, several suggestions were made to the witness denying the execution of the alleged agreement for sale at Ex.P-1, however, the witness did not admit those suggestions as true. She denied the suggestion that she had collected blank Stamp papers, but duly signed by the defendant No.1 with the promise that she would return those blank Stamp papers once the defendant No.1 repays the alleged loan amount of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-to her. She also denied a suggestion that the defendant No.1 had availed a loan from the plaintiff to perform the marriage of her daughter and at that time, she had put her signatures on the blank Stamp papers. She also denied the suggestion that since the said loan amount borrowed by the defendant No.1 turned out to be insufficient to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter, the defendant No.1 had to enter into an agreement of sale with her brother, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property and later, she also cancelled the agreement for sale and executed a Gift Deed in favour of her brother, in order to save stamp duty. However, the witness expressed her ignorance about the same. From the said cross-examination, it is clear that the defendant No.1 has put her defence in the mouth of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff did not admit the defence taken by the defendant No.1. 18. Contrary to the above evidence of PW-1 (plaintiff), the other witness, i.e. PW-3 -Sri. Arjuna the Deed Writer has stated that the Stamp papers were given to him by Sri.A.S. Shivashankar who is known to him and who always gets documents written by him. This falsifies the evidence of PW-1 that the Stamp papers were brought by defendant No.1. 19. Contrary to the above evidence of PW-1 (plaintiff), the other witness, i.e. PW-3 -Sri. Arjuna the Deed Writer has stated that the Stamp papers were given to him by Sri.A.S. Shivashankar who is known to him and who always gets documents written by him. This falsifies the evidence of PW-1 that the Stamp papers were brought by defendant No.1. 19. However, one point to be noticed in the cross-examination of PW-1 is that, the witness stated that the Stamp papers for the execution of agreement for sale was brought by the first defendant herself. Whereas, the name of the purchaser of the Stamp paper at Ex.P-1 shows as Sheela, W/o A.S. Arun Kumar, who is the plaintiff herein. 20. In the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 also, denial suggestions were made to the witnesses, however, the witnesses have not admitted those suggestions as true. Both the witnesses admitted that the uncle of the plaintiff by name Sri.A.S. Shivashankar was known to them, however, denied that because of the said friendship of these witnesses with the said Sri.A.S. Shivashankar, they are giving a false evidence in support of the plaintiff. PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted a suggestion as true that though he is the Deed Writer, however, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 had told him as to what to be written in the said document at Ex.P-1. Therefore, the evidence of PW-3 would go to show that, the said document was prepared not at the instance of either the plaintiff or the defendant No.1. PW-3 has also stated in his cross-examination that, it was in his presence, the defendant No.1 -Bhagyamma paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-to the plaintiff Smt. Sheela. This is not the case of the plaintiff at all. The plaintiff’s case is that she (plaintiff) paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-to the defendant No.1, whereas the witness has stated otherwise. PW-3 has also admitted as true a suggestion that it is conventional that the signatures of the parties would be obtained on each of the pages of the documents. Admittedly, page No.1 and page No.2 of Ex.P-1 do not bear the signatures of anybody, much less of the parties to the alleged agreement. It is only in the last page of Ex.P-1, the signatures of the parties are shown to have been obtained. Admittedly, page No.1 and page No.2 of Ex.P-1 do not bear the signatures of anybody, much less of the parties to the alleged agreement. It is only in the last page of Ex.P-1, the signatures of the parties are shown to have been obtained. The page No.3 of the said document which is also a front page of the separate sheet of the e-Stamp paper is totally left blank except the e-Stamp printing, whereas the alleged continuation of the recital of the agreement is shown on the backside of the said sheet which is page No.4 which is the last page of the document. When the first page of the said document which is also the front page of e-Stamp paper bears the recital of the alleged agreement, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the above said page No.3 which is also another front page of another e-Stamp paper was not made use of. This, as one among the doubts about the execution of Ex.P-1 by the defendant No.1 draws the attention of the Court and creates some doubt in the alleged execution of the document at Ex.P-1 by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Added to the above, PW-3 -the Deed Writer has stated in his cross-examination that, he is not aware as to whether the alleged transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was only a loan transaction but not a transaction pertaining to an immovable property. This statement of PW-3 further strengthens the doubt with respect to the execution of Ex.P-1 by the defendant No.1. PW-3, at one breath, says that he was the Deed Writer of Ex.P-1 and has written the same at the instruction of one Sri.A.S. Shivashankar, the uncle of the plaintiff. When he (PW-3) himself says that the exchange of money took place in his presence only and also in the presence of witnesses, his subsequent statement that he is not aware as to whether the transaction was a loan transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 or a transaction with respect to an immovable property, creates some more doubt about the credibility of the evidence of this witness and also about the alleged transaction. It is because, as a Document Writer, who claims authorship of Ex.P-1 by himself, should have clearly known as to the nature of transaction, which, according to him, was documented under Ex.P-1 under his drafting/preparation. However, he himself pleads ignorance about the nature of transaction alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. 21. The defendant No.1, as DW-1, in her cross-examination, though has admitted her signature in the last page of Ex.P-1, which was marked as Ex.P-1(a), however, she stated that she had put that signature on a blank Stamp paper. No doubt, the said witness has stated that, her other admitted signatures on the Written Statement and the certified copy of the registered Release Deed are also her signatures only, and stated that she put those signatures on the blank papers, by that itself, it cannot be inferred that, her evidence is not credible and trustworthy. Admittedly, she is not highly educated and claims to have studied only upto X Standard. She reiterated in her cross-examination that her transaction with the plaintiff as well with her (plaintiff’s) uncle Sri.A.S. Shivashankar was only a transaction of loan, wherein, in total, from both of them, she had availed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for the performance of the marriage of her daughter. At one place in her cross-examination, the witness has admitted a suggestion as true that before signing any paper, she would read it and then sign. By that itself, it cannot be inferred that she had read Ex.P-1 in its entirety since the very contention of the defendant No.1 was that the first sheet of Ex.P-1 was not there when she signed the document and that she had put her signatures on blank Stamp papers. 22. It was specifically and categorically suggested to DW-1 in her cross-examination that, had she not intended to sell her property, there was no occasion for her to put her signature in any blank paper. To the said suggestion, the witness replied stating that since the other party asked her to put her signature to the blank paper which would be returned to her when she repays the loan amount, she had put her signature to the same. Thus, under what circumstance she had put her signature to the document at Ex.P-1 is explained by DW-1, which finds no reason to suspect the same. 23. Thus, under what circumstance she had put her signature to the document at Ex.P-1 is explained by DW-1, which finds no reason to suspect the same. 23. The above contention of defendant No.1 that believing the other party (plaintiff) and her uncle, Sri.A.S. Shivashankar that they would return the very same blank papers, she signed the said blank papers becomes more probable for the reason that, even according to the Deed Writer (PW-3), it is the convention that when the document runs into more than one page, the signature of the executant of the document would be taken on each of the pages. However, admittedly, Ex.P-1, which contains four pages, bears only one signature of the defendant No.1 in the last page, though it is shown as the signature of the vendor. 24. The other point of argument which the learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) vehemently canvassed is about the alleged discrepancy in the description shown in the e-Stamp paper at Ex.P-1 about the nature of the document. The issuance of the document, in two separate sheets with two different unique identification numbers, which, according to the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants), would go to show that, the first sheet of Ex.P-1 was substituted or added by the plaintiff to make the said document as an agreement for sale of an immovable property, when in fact, it was not. 25. According to the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants), had the alleged agreement was for sale of an immovable property on a Stamp paper of the value of Rs.300/-, then the e-Stamping on the Stamp paper would have been only one e-Stamp paper on the front sheet and that the parties would have added additional sheets for continuation of the document, though the additional sheets were not required to bear any e-Stamping on them. Learned counsel also contended that, in both the e-Stamping in Ex.P-1 at page No.1 and page No.3, the description of the document is shown as “Article 12 Bond”. When the said description of the document is “Article 12 Bond”, then it cannot be an agreement for sale of an immovable property. The mentioning of the word ‘Agreement’ against the row ‘Description’ which is beneath the row ‘Description of Document’ on the e-Stamping, also creates a doubt. 26. When the said description of the document is “Article 12 Bond”, then it cannot be an agreement for sale of an immovable property. The mentioning of the word ‘Agreement’ against the row ‘Description’ which is beneath the row ‘Description of Document’ on the e-Stamping, also creates a doubt. 26. Section 2(1)(ab) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Karnataka Stamp Act”) defines ‘Bond’ as follows: “2. Definitions.-(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxx xxx (aa) xxx xxx xxx (ab) “Bond” includes.- (i) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed or is not performed, as the case may be; (ii) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (iii) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another;” 27. Thus, according to the above said definition, under the said document ‘Bond’, a person obliges himself to pay money or deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another. The said definition does not speak about an agreement between the two parties for the sale or purchase of any immovable property for a valuable consideration. 28. Article 12 in the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, also prescribes the proper Stamp duty on the said instrument ‘Bond’, taking the amount or the value secured under the said instrument. It also shows that the ‘Bond’ under Article 12 is different from Administration Bond (No.2) Bottomry Bond (No.13), Customs Bond (No.23) Indemnity Bond (No.29), Respondentia Bond (No.46), Security Bond (No.47). Therefore, the document at Ex.P-1, which contains two separate sheets, each with e-Stamp printing upon it describes the background as Article 12 ‘Bond’. Admittedly, the said e-Stamping paper was not issued describing it as having issued under Article 20 which is ‘For Conveyance’. Thus, it further creates a doubt as to whether the nature of transaction was the one for agreement for sale of an immovable property. It is not the case of the plaintiff that though the document alleged to have been executed by the defendant No.1 was an agreement for sale of immovable property, however, there was improper description of the document at Ex.P-1 as “Article 12 Bond”. It is not the case of the plaintiff that though the document alleged to have been executed by the defendant No.1 was an agreement for sale of immovable property, however, there was improper description of the document at Ex.P-1 as “Article 12 Bond”. In such a situation, the description of the e-Stamp could have been rectified by obtaining an endorsement on the instrument by the Deputy Commissioner as per Rule 15 of Chapter IV of the Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Karnataka Stamp Rules”). Admittedly, no such attempt has been made by the plaintiff in the matter. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant No.1 that she had taken a loan from the plaintiff of a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, and at that time, her signature was obtained on blank Stamp papers, promising her that the same would be returned to her once she repays the loan amount, moves more closer to the probability than the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had executed the document at Ex.P-1, knowing that it is an agreement for sale of the immovable property. 29. It is an admitted fact that, Ex.P-1 the alleged agreement for sale of immovable property bears two e-Stamp papers, each with separate embossing of e-Stamping upon it. Page No.1 of first sheet shows the payment of Stamp duty of Rs.200/-, whereas, the other sheet of the same Exhibit shows the payment of Stamp duty of Rs.100/-. Though in total, the Stamp duty paid is a sum of Rs.300/-, however, they are under two separate e-Stamp papers. Rule 11 of Chapter III of the PDES Rules of 2009 prescribes as to what are all the minimum details to be mentioned on the e-Stamp Certificate and also other requirements. Rule 11(a), 11(f) and 11(g) are relevant in this case. Further Chapter VI of PDES Rules of 2009 speaks about the ‘Procedure for Issue of e-Stamp Certificate’. Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 22 and Rule 25 are the relevant Rules which requires consideration in this case. The above Rule 11(a), Rule 11(f), Rule 11(g), Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 22 and Rule 25 reads as below: Rule 11. Further Chapter VI of PDES Rules of 2009 speaks about the ‘Procedure for Issue of e-Stamp Certificate’. Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 22 and Rule 25 are the relevant Rules which requires consideration in this case. The above Rule 11(a), Rule 11(f), Rule 11(g), Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 22 and Rule 25 reads as below: Rule 11. Specification of software to be used by Central Record Keeping agency.-The Central Record Keeping Agency, in consultation with the Appointing Authority, shall design and use such software, to indicate the following minimum details on the e-Stamp Certificate, and also for other requirements.- (a) Distinguished serial number/Unique identification number of the e-Stamp Certificate so that it is not repeated on any other e-Stamp Certificate during the lifetime of the e-Stamping system; (b) to (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) Brief description of the instrument on which the Stamp duty is intended to be paid; (g) Brief description of the property which is subject-matter of the instrument; Rule 20. Application for e-Stamp Certificate.-Any person paying Stamp duty may approach any of the Approved Intermediaries/Authorised Collection Centres and furnish the requisite details in Form 3 along with the payment of Stamp duty amount, for getting the e-Stamp Certificate. Rule 21. Mode of payment of Stamp duty.-(1) the payment for purchase of e-Stamp Certificate may be made by means of cash, pay order, Bank draft, Electronic Clearing System, Real time Gross Settlement or by any other mode of transferring funds as authorized by the appointing Authority. (2) The Authorized Collection Centre shall issue e-Stamp Certificate for the amount received through any of the modes of payments mentioned in sub-rule (1). (3) The Authorized Collection Centre/Central Record Keeping Agency shall keep a daily account of e-Stamp Certificates issued in a Register to be maintained by them as prescribed in Form 5. Rule 22. Issue of e-Stamp Certificate.-(1) The authorized Official of the Approved Intermediary shall, on the payment made under Rule 21, enter the requisite information and details as provided by the applicant in the application Form 3 in the computer system, get the correctness of such entered details verified by the applicant, take his signature on the application as proof of verification, download the e-Stamp Certificate (vide Annexure-A1), take out its print, sign with date and affix his official seal on the print-out and issue the e-Stamp Certificate to the applicant. (2) The ink to be used in the e-Stamp Certificate printer must be non-washable permanent black. Rule 25. Payment of additional Stamp duty.-If for any reason a person, who has an e-Stamp Certificate of certain denomination issued for a document, needs to pay an additional Stamp duty on the same document, he may make an application in the prescribed format (FORM 3) along with the payment of such required amount of additional Stamp duty to the Approved Intermediary/Authorized collection Centre, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” 30. According to the above extracted Rule 11(a) of the PDES Rules of 2009, every e-Stamp paper will be issued upon an application for e-Stamp Certificate in Form No.3 along with the payment of Stamp duty amount for getting the e-Stamp Certificate. 31. In the instant case, both the sheets in Ex.P-1 shows that they were purchased by one Smt. Sheela, W/o. A.S. Arun Kumar, (i.e. the plaintiff). However, the first sheet (page No.1) was after collection of Stamp duty of a sum of Rs.200/-and the second sheet (page No.3) was after collection of a Stamp duty of a sum of Rs.100/-. According to Rule 21 (2) the Authorised Collection Centre shall issue e-Stamp Certificate for the amount received. Thus, for two Stamp papers of a sum of Rs.200/-and Rs.100/-at Ex.P-1, the purchaser has submitted two separate applications in Form No.3. It is after the Approved Intermediary, on the payment made to it under Rule 21 has entered the requisite information and details as provided by the applicant in the application Form No.3 and getting the scrutiny of such entered details by the applicant, has proceeded to issue e-Stamp Certificates to the applicant (the plaintiff) as per Rule 22 of the PDES Rules of 2009. 32. According to the above extracted Rule 11(a) of the PDES Rules of 2009, every e-Stamp paper will be issued by the Approved Intermediary or Authorised Collection Centre or Authorised Stamping Centre as defined under Rule 2(d) of the PDES Rules of 2009. Such e-Stamping Certificate should necessarily bear a distinguished Serial Number/Unique Identification Number of the e-Stamp Certificate which shall not be repeated on any other e-Stamp Certificate during the lifetime of the e-Stamping system. As such, the e-Stamp Certificate issued by the Authorised Intermediary is unique and there will be no repetition of such Certificate number. Such e-Stamping Certificate should necessarily bear a distinguished Serial Number/Unique Identification Number of the e-Stamp Certificate which shall not be repeated on any other e-Stamp Certificate during the lifetime of the e-Stamping system. As such, the e-Stamp Certificate issued by the Authorised Intermediary is unique and there will be no repetition of such Certificate number. Thus, irrespective of the amount of the Stamp duty paid to or collected by the Intermediary, they issue only one e-Stamp paper bearing a Unique Identification Number. The person who pays the Stamp duty amount and purchases the e-Stamp paper, if wants to have more number of pages, may add bond papers which do not bear the e-Stamping Certificate/ embossing on it. For convenience, the Government of Karnataka has enabled the printing of such bond paper through Registration and Stamps Department which is being sold at a very nominal cost. As could be seen in Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, those blank papers for documents printing is shown to have been sold at a sum of Rs.2/-per sheet. 33. It is pertinent to note here itself that every e-Stamp Certificate i.e. e-Stamp paper issued would be under a separate requisition by the purchaser and each of those e-Stamp paper will bear a separate Unique Identification Number as Certificate number. 34. In the instant case, though Ex.P-1 is shown to have been containing two e-Stamp papers purchased on the same day, at the same time, and by the same person, but both of them bear two different Certificate numbers (i.e. Unique Identification Numbers), as such, both of them are sure to have been issued under two requisitions in Form No.3. As such also, the contention of the defendant No.1 that she signed on blank Stamp papers and the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that page Nos.1 and 2 which is sheet No.1 of Ex.P-1 was subsequently added by the plaintiff, as such, it bears two Unique Identification Numbers and does not bear the signatures of the executants of the agreement gains more importance. 35. Therefore, it cannot be and also has not been the case of the plaintiff that, since two sheets were required to prepare the document as per Ex.P-1, two e-Stamp papers were purchased in the denomination of a sum of Rs.200/-and Rs.100/-respectively. 35. Therefore, it cannot be and also has not been the case of the plaintiff that, since two sheets were required to prepare the document as per Ex.P-1, two e-Stamp papers were purchased in the denomination of a sum of Rs.200/-and Rs.100/-respectively. Thus, for single payment of Stamp duty, only one e-Stamp Certificate would be issued, whereas in the case on hand, two e-Stamp Certificates have been issued with two different Unique Identification Numbers, for preparation of a single document. 36. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Stamp duty paid for the purchase of one of the e-Stamp paper in Ex.P-1 being insufficient, they purchased on the same day, at the same time, another Stamp paper, for the differential amount in Ex.P-1. The said contention even if it is taken and assumed also, cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, both the sheets in Ex.P-1 shows the date and time of the purchase exactly the same i.e. “07-Aug-2014 01:21 PM”, as such, it is not to make good the alleged deficit Stamp duty or for payment of additional Stamp duty, the second sheet was purchased by them. Secondly, in case there was any need to pay an additional Stamp duty on the same document, then the applicant/purchaser of the Stamp paper was required to make the said payment according to Rule 25 of PDES Rules of 2009, which is extracted above, for which, he/she was required to make an application in the prescribed format (i.e. Form No.3) along with the payment of such required amount of additional Stamp duty to the Approved Intermediary, in accordance with the provisions of the PDES Rules of 2009. Thereafter, the Approved Intermediary will issue the e-Stamp Certificate, for such additional Stamp duty. However, in the case on hand, it is not the case of the plaintiff either in her pleading or in her evidence or even in the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) that, the additional Stamp duty was paid. As such also, the two e-Stamp Certificates in Ex.P-1 are to be taken as independent and separate e-Stamp Certificates not meant for a single transaction with the defendant No.1. 37. As such also, the two e-Stamp Certificates in Ex.P-1 are to be taken as independent and separate e-Stamp Certificates not meant for a single transaction with the defendant No.1. 37. These greater discrepancies, as analysed above, with respect to e-Stamp Certificates in Ex.P-1 strengthens the contention of the defendant No.1 that it was a loan transaction and at the same time, weakens the case of the plaintiff about the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 entering into an agreement for sale with respect to an immovable property. 38. In addition to the above, according to Rule 28 of PDES Rules of 2009, the distinguished unique identification number of the e-Stamp Certificate is required to be written or typed at the top centre of each page of the instrument, which is lacking in Ex.P-1. Moreover, as per Rule 4 (1)(ii) of Karnataka Stamp Rules, a Stamp, which by any word or words on the face of it is appropriated to any particular kind of instrument, shall not be used for an instrument of any other kind. 39. In the instant case, apart from non-mentioning of the unique identification number on each page of Ex.P-1, as observed above, the e-Stamp Certificate was issued for the purpose of a ‘Bond’ under Article 12 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, whereas, the said e-Stamp paper is shown to have been used for the purpose of an ‘Agreement’ for sale of an immovable property. This also adds to the doubts that have already arisen in the case of the plaintiff and strengthens the contention of the defendant No.1 that it was in respect of a loan transaction. 40. Ex.P-1 describes the document as ‘Article 12 Bond’, as required under Rule 11 (f) of the PDES Rules of 2009. The further description given in the next row in the e-Stamp Certificate describing as “Agreement” may have to be considered as the compliance of requirement of Rule 11(g) of the PDES Rules of 2009. However, there is nothing to believe that the ‘Description’ as an ‘Agreement’ sails with the ‘Description of Document’ as ‘Article 12 Bond’. This aspect cannot be simply ignored. 41. However, there is nothing to believe that the ‘Description’ as an ‘Agreement’ sails with the ‘Description of Document’ as ‘Article 12 Bond’. This aspect cannot be simply ignored. 41. However, the Trial Court did not consider these aspects, on the other hand, blindly relying upon the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and without even noticing these discrepancies in their evidence proceeded to answer the issue No.1 framed by it in the affirmative which finding is now proved to be erroneous. 42. Further, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court has also decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the registered agreement for sale dated 22-08-2014 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, though the issue No.3 framed by the Trial Court was, whether the plaintiff further proves that the registered Release Deed dated 09-09-2014 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff? But no issue has been framed by the Trial Court about declaring the registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 43. Further, in the absence of any issue being framed which consequently has resulted the defendant No.1 not concentrating on leading the evidence on the validity of the registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 has resulted in the defendant No.1 suffering a decree wherein the said registered sale agreement dated 22-08-2014 was declared as null and void. Thus, a declaration has been made by the Trial Court in its judgment, in the absence of any issue framed by it on the said point and defendant No.1 not getting any opportunity to lead her evidence on it. 44. All the above discrepancies and omissions have not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court which have led it to give an erroneous finding on issue No.1. 45. The learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) in his very brief argument which is reproduced hereinabove in its entirety, submitted that, the defendant No.1 had knowledge that Ex.P-1 was an agreement for sale, otherwise, she would not have executed Sale Deed in favour of the defendant No.2 and also Relinquishment/Release Deed as per Ex.P-3 in favour of the defendant No.2. 46. 46. The said argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) is not acceptable for the reason that, commencing from her Written Statement till the evidence led by her as DW-1, the defendant No.1, has, at several places, explained the reason as to what made her to execute Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. Undisputedly, the other party to Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 is the defendant No.2, who is her elder brother. She has stated that since the loan amount, which according to her, was availed from the plaintiff and one Sri.A.S. Shivashankar in total to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-was being insufficient to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter, she had agreed to part with the suit schedule property in favour of her brother (defendant No.2) which made her to execute initially Ex.P-2 and later the Relinquishment/Release Deed as per Ex.P-3, upon a legal advise in order to save the Stamp duty on a document for conveyance. 47. The other point of argument addressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) that the contract of Specific Performance can be oral also, is not a point in dispute in the present matter. It is nobody’s case that there was any oral contract between the parties. Our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.Nanjappa (D) by Lrs. Vs. R.A. Hameed alias Ameersab (D) by Lrs. And Anr. (supra) in paragraph 19 of its judgment has held that, even a decree for specific performance can be granted on the basis of an oral contract. In the very same judgment at paragraph 20, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in a case where the plaintiff come forward to seek a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property on the basis of an oral agreement or a written contract, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem between the parties for the concluded agreement for sale of immovable property. Whether there was such a concluded contract or not would be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It has to be established by the plaintiffs that vital and fundamental terms for sale of immovable property were concluded between the parties. 48. Whether there was such a concluded contract or not would be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It has to be established by the plaintiffs that vital and fundamental terms for sale of immovable property were concluded between the parties. 48. In the instant case, as analysed above, the plaintiff could not able to establish that Ex.P-1 was the agreement for sale of immovable property executed by the defendant No.1 in her favour. Several aspects which have led to improbabalise her contention have been analysed above. It is nobody’s case that there was any oral agreement for sale of immovable property. Even according to the plaintiff also, the alleged transaction was documented, in which regard, she has examined PW-2 and PW-3. 49. As analysed above, PW-3 the Deed Writer himself has stated that he does not know as to whether the transaction between the parties was a loan transaction or the one relating to an immovable property. Thus, the existence of any oral agreement also could not be established by the plaintiff. As such, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Nanjappa’s case (supra) would not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. As a result, the finding of the Trial Court on issue No.1 answering the said issue in the affirmative has since now proved to be an erroneous one, the said issue is required to be answered in the negative. Consequently, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the contract would not arise since the very existence of the contract has not been proved by her. Resultantly, she is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of the alleged contract dated 07-08-2014 and also for the relief of declaration which is sought for by her in her plaint. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : [i] The appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) stands allowed; [ii] The impugned judgment and decree dated 31-01-2017, passed in O.S.No.53/2014, by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, K.R. Nagar, partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, stands set aside; [iii] The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.53/2014 stands dismissed as devoid of merits; [iv] In the circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs. Draw the modified decree accordingly. Draw the modified decree accordingly. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Trial Court, immediately.