JUDGMENT : UMESH M ADIGA, J. This is the defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.133/2006. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that; defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property and he had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.33 lakhs and executed a registered Agreement of Sale dated 17.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiff and received advance sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs; One year’s time was granted to execute the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; He repeatedly requested defendant No.1 to execute the registered Sale Deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration; The defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed; Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 16.01.2006 calling upon the defendant No.1 to execute the Sale Deed and register the same after receiving of balance of sale consideration; The defendant No.1 neither replied to the said notice nor complied with the terms of the notice; Hence, he was compelled to file the suit. With these reasons, he prayed to decree the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 5. Defendants filed common written statement. All the plaint averments were denied. They contended that there were transactions between defendant No.1 and one Basavaraj, a relative of plaintiff; Defendant No.1 had executed registered agreement of sale in the name of plaintiff at the instructions of Basavaraj, in respect of the transaction between himself and Basavaraj; It was a nominal agreement of sale; No consideration was paid to him on the date of alleged agreement of sale; The market value of the said property as on that date was more than Rs.60 lakhs; Plaintiff had no source of income to pay the said amount of earnest money; Said property was also not required to the plaintiff since he was a permanent resident of Tarikere. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues : "(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.33 lakhs and received Rs.30 lakhs as an advance and executed the registered agreement to sell in his favour dt. 13-5-2005? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs and executed the registered sale deed in his favour within one year from the date of agreement of sale? (3) Whether plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? (4) Whether defendant No.1 proves that he has executed nominal registered agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the transaction between himself and one Basavaraj without receiving any consideration amount? (5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? (6) What order or decree?" 7. The trial Court recorded the evidence of both the parties. Plaintiff examined four witnesses as PW-1 to PW-4 and marked the documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-9. Defendants examined two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2 and no documents were marked. 8. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative. The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and directed defendant No.1 to execute the registered Sale Deed for and on behalf of himself and defendant Nos.2 and 3 within two months, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011. 9. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates appearing for both the side. 10. Following points emerge for our determination : (1) Whether the trial Court erred in holding that defendant No.1 had executed an agreement of sale, agreeing to sell the suit property? (2) Whether trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (3) Whether the trial Judge erred in rejecting the contention of the defendants that it was a nominal document and no consideration was paid to the defendant No.1? (2) Whether trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (3) Whether the trial Judge erred in rejecting the contention of the defendants that it was a nominal document and no consideration was paid to the defendant No.1? (4) Whether the appellants have made out a ground to allow the additional evidence and whether the additional evidence would help the Court to decide the case effectively? (5) Whether the findings of the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and justifiable, hence, needs to be reversed? (6) What order? Point Nos.1 and 3 : 11. Pleadings of both the parties are stated above. Plaintiff in his pleading and evidence contended that, defendant No.1 executed Ex.P-1 i.e., registered agreement of Sale dated 17.05.2005. In the written statement, defendant No.1 did not dispute the execution of Ex.D-1, but he contended that, it was a nominal document executed in the name of plaintiff at the instance of one Basavaraj with whom he had transactions. He also contended that he had not received any amount on the date of alleged agreement. 12. Ex.P-1, dated 17.05.2005 was executed and registered at Shivamogga. It was witnessed by one K.G.Shantakumar and M.S.Srinivasa Murthy. It was signed by both plaintiff and defendant No.1. The recitals of the said document corroborate the case of the plaintiff. It also discloses how the defendant No.1 acquired the said land, reasons for selling of the said property, sale consideration, advance amount received and balance amount to be received. It also mentions the time within which defendant No.1 had to execute Sale Deed and register it. It does not appear on the face of the record that it was a nominal document. 13. Defendant No.1 is not a rustic villager. Undisputedly, he was a businessman running arecanut business. If he had transactions with Basavaraj, then why he would execute a document in favour of Rudrappa or what was his difficulty to execute the said document in favour of Basavaraj, are not all stated in the written statement. The said Basavaraj had not signed the said document. It is not the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had got executed the agreement of sale in his name through fraud or misrepresentation. Looking at the document itself, it does not appear that it was a formal or nominal document. 14. The said Basavaraj had not signed the said document. It is not the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had got executed the agreement of sale in his name through fraud or misrepresentation. Looking at the document itself, it does not appear that it was a formal or nominal document. 14. It appears, along with the said agreement of sale, plaintiff had given copy of Encumbrance Certificate, xerox copy of original registered Gift Deed dated 11.04.2000, executed in favour of defendant No.1 by his father, xerox copy of the Demand Register Extract, self- assessment of tax submitted to City Municipal Council, Shivamogga. All these documents appears to be marked together along with Ex.P-1. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing was brought out to show as to how the custody of the said document was with the plaintiff. If the defendant No.1 had no intention to sell the property or if it was a nominal document, there was no need for him to furnish these documents to the plaintiff along with Ex.P-1. 15. Prior to filing of the suit, legal notice dated 16.01.2006 was sent to the defendants through advocate for plaintiff and it was duly served on the defendants. The service of legal notice is not in dispute. Undisputedly, it was not replied by the defendants. It is also one of the circumstance that would go against the defendants. If defendant No.1 had not executed any such document, it is difficult to believe that he would keep quiet if someone tried to usurp the property belonging to him. Defendants tried to contend that immediately after notice, defendant No.1 contacted the said Basavaraj, who assured him that it was a formal notice. This contention is also not substantiated. In the evidence of DW-2, no questions were asked in this regard. 16. Plaintiff to prove his case, examined PWs.2 to 4, who were witnesses and scribe to Ex.P-1. In their cross- examination, nothing was brought out to disbelieve their evidence so as to probabalise the defence of the defendants. 17. The agreement of sale was reduced into writing. Defendants dispute the contents of the said document and contended that it was a nominal document and defendant No.1 had not received any amount in this regard. Such contentions are not permissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the Sections reads as under : "91. 17. The agreement of sale was reduced into writing. Defendants dispute the contents of the said document and contended that it was a nominal document and defendant No.1 had not received any amount in this regard. Such contentions are not permissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both the Sections reads as under : "91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms." (Note : Explanation to Section 91 and proviso to Section 92 are not mentioned) Hence, the said defence of the defendants is not permissible. 18. To rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1. In his evidence, he has reiterated the contentions taken in the written statement. In his cross-examination, he admitted execution of Ex.P-1, but has stated that it was executed in favour of Basavaraj and at his instance, in the name of plaintiff. Most of the cross-examination was in respect of value of the property. 19. He has also examined DW-2, the star witness -Basavaraj. In his evidence, he has not supported the contentions of the defendants, except stating that, there was a business, as well as a financial transaction between himself and defendant No.1. Most of the cross-examination was in respect of value of the property. 19. He has also examined DW-2, the star witness -Basavaraj. In his evidence, he has not supported the contentions of the defendants, except stating that, there was a business, as well as a financial transaction between himself and defendant No.1. It is not brought out in his evidence as to how much amount was due to him as on the date of Ex.P-1. He also denied the suggestion that at his instance, and as a security to the outstanding loan amount to Basavaraj, defendant No.1 executed Ex.P-1 in the name of the plaintiff. In his evidence, it was not brought out as to the reasons for not executing the document in favour of Basavaraj and also the reasons to execute the said document in favour of the plaintiff. The said rebuttal evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 is not sufficient to demolish or disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff. 20. There is serious contention regarding the valuation of the suit property and the sale consideration fixed for it. However, a mere difference between the value of the property stated in the agreement of sale and its market value cannot, by itself, create any doubt about the execution of the agreement. For various reasons, the parties may have attempted to conceal the actual amount of the sale consideration. Moreover, it is an agreement between two parties and if both the parties wish to sell the property for a certain price, even if the said price is much lesser than the market value, that cannot be a ground to doubt the agreement of sale or reject the relief of specific performance. Moreover, defendants were unable to prove that as on the date of the agreement of sale, the market value of the property was exorbitant than mentioned in Ex.P-1. 22. The trial Judge appreciated the materials on record. On re-appreciatiion of the same, we do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Accordingly, we answer point Nos.1 and 3 in the negative. Point No.2 : 22. Plaintiff in his pleading and evidence has stated that he was ready to willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial Judge appreciated the materials on record. On re-appreciatiion of the same, we do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Accordingly, we answer point Nos.1 and 3 in the negative. Point No.2 : 22. Plaintiff in his pleading and evidence has stated that he was ready to willing to perform his part of the contract. As per Ex.P-1, defendant No.1 had to comply certain requirements and one year time was granted for the same, within which the plaintiff had to pay the balance amount and thereafter, defendant No.1 had to execute the registered Sale Deed. There are no materials on record to show that defendant No.1 had obtained no due certificate from the bank and intimated it to the plaintiff. PW-1 has stated that he repeatedly made oral requests to defendant No.1 to execute the registered Sale Deed and that the defendant No.1 went on postponing the same and thereafter, he issued a notice dated 16.01.2006 i.e., within a period of 6 to 7 months from the date of Ex.P-1, the copy of which is produced at Ex.P-2. 23. It is not the contention of the defendants that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Judge rightly held that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. Point No.4 : 24. The appellants/defendants have filed IA.No.3/2011 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC, seeking permission to produce the documents by way of additional evidence. In the affidavit, appellant No.1/defendant No.1 has stated that his advocate had colluded with the plaintiff and that he did not produce the same before the Court during the trial. He has also stated that his advocate did not even cross-examine Basavaraj, who had not supported the contentions of the defendants. He further stated that he has lodged a complaint against his advocate before the Bar Council. In view of these reasons, the relevant documents were not placed on record. 25. Along with the said application, the applicant has produced the following documents : "1. Certified copy of revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres of Vittalapura Village, Tarikere Taluk. 2. Certified copy of revenue record of Sy.No.20, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Vittalapura Village, Tarikere Taluk. 3. 25. Along with the said application, the applicant has produced the following documents : "1. Certified copy of revenue records pertaining to Sy.No.82, measuring 5 acres of Vittalapura Village, Tarikere Taluk. 2. Certified copy of revenue record of Sy.No.20, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Vittalapura Village, Tarikere Taluk. 3. Certified copy of revenue record of Sy.No.82, measuring 9 acres 20 guntas of Chokonahalli Village Tarikere Taluk. 4. Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate of Sy.No.82/2, Vittalapura Village. 5. Certified copy of Sy.No.82/2 of Chakonahalli Village. 6. Mutation Register 7. Certified copy of Endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar, Tarikere, regarding the sale of land by Rudrappa in Tarikere Taluk. 8. Copy of complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act against B.M.Ravikumar and Vijayakumar, Advocates." 26. It is pertinent to note that evidence of defendant No.1 was recorded. If these documents were not produced by his counsel, he ought to have enquired about the same with his advocate. His silence in this regard indicates that he had not attempted to produce these documents during the evidence. He has not produced a copy of the complaint alleged to be sent to State Bar Council against his advocate Mr.B.M.Ravikumar. On the contrary, copy of a notice sent to advocate is produced along with application. What was the development after the issuance of notice is not placed on record. Therefore, prima facie it is not substantiated that any such action was taken against the advocate. The documents placed on record i.e., the valuation of the property by an Engineer is dated 24.02.2011, by that time, already trial Court decided the suit. Copy of the bank statement is dated 21.02.2011 and it was also obtained subsequent to the disposal of the suit. Nothing was brought out to show that these documents were handed over to the advocate representing him in the trial Court. 27. As already stated above, defendant No.1 is not an illiterate or a rustic villager. He had participated in the trial of the case. Under these circumstances, he was unable to prove that with all due diligence, he was unable to produce these documents during trial of the case. 28. The above said documents in no way helps the Court to come to a just conclusion. He had participated in the trial of the case. Under these circumstances, he was unable to prove that with all due diligence, he was unable to produce these documents during trial of the case. 28. The above said documents in no way helps the Court to come to a just conclusion. In this regard, as already discussed above, these documents does not reflect that he was indebted to Basavaraj to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs as on the date of execution of Ex.P-1. Mere difference in value of the property cannot be a ground to disbelieve the agreement of sale. Therefore, the said application does not deserves to be considered. Accordingly, we answer point No.4 in the negative. Point No.5 : 29. The trial Court in detail appreciated the evidence and discussed the contentions of both the parties and came to a right conclusion. It does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, we answer the said point in the negative. 30. The defendant No.1, either in the written statement or in his evidence, has not put forth any ground of hardship that would arise if the relief of specific performance is granted. Plaintiff paid Rs.30 lakhs on 17.05.2005. In spite of lapse of about 20 years, he is not able to get any fruits of the said agreement of sale. Defendant No.1 received the said amount and enjoyed the fruits of the same. Therefore, comparative hardship would be caused to the plaintiff if relief of specific performance is rejected. Therefore, he is entitled for the said relief. 31. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments : 1. Wadi -vs- Amilal and others,, ILR 2003 KAR 4637 2. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., -vs- State of Kerala and another, 2011 AIR SCW 264 3. Smt.Sheetawwa -vs- Hemareddi, 2004 (3) KCCR 2115 4. Parakunnan Veetill Joseph's Son Mathew -vs-Nedumbara Kuruvila's Son and others, AIR 1987 SC 2328 5. Thiruvengadam Pillai -vs- Navaneethammal and another, (2008) 4 SCC 530 6. S.Kugashankar -vs- Subhash Chand Goel and others, ILR 2006 KAR 3689 7. Sri K.Gajendran -vs- Sri Chikkathimma and others, 2007 (4) KCCR 2506 (DB) 8. P.C Varghese -vs- Devaki Amma Balambika Devi, 2006 (1) KCCR 408 9. Banshilal Soni (Dead) Through L.Rs. -vs- Kastoor Chand Begani (Dead) by L.Rs., 2007 (9) SCC 610 10. Janakibai and another -vs- Shyamasundar Rander, , 2005 (2) KCCR 831 11. Sri K.Gajendran -vs- Sri Chikkathimma and others, 2007 (4) KCCR 2506 (DB) 8. P.C Varghese -vs- Devaki Amma Balambika Devi, 2006 (1) KCCR 408 9. Banshilal Soni (Dead) Through L.Rs. -vs- Kastoor Chand Begani (Dead) by L.Rs., 2007 (9) SCC 610 10. Janakibai and another -vs- Shyamasundar Rander, , 2005 (2) KCCR 831 11. Sri.Punny Akat Philip Raju, since deceased, by L.R. -vs-. Dinesh Reddy, 2016 (3) KCCR 2372 12. Garre Mallikharjuna Rao, since deceased, by L.Rs.-vs- Nalabothu Punnaiah , 2013 (4) SCC 546 13. V R Sudhakara Rao and others -vs-. T.V. Kameshwari, 2007 (6) SCC 650 32. The said judgments pertain to the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and the hardship of the parties to be considered for grant of relief of specific performance. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the said law is laid down by this Court, as well as Apex Court. In this case, as discussed above, the additional evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff are not of much importance and allowing such evidence will not make any difference in determining the issues. Similarly, comparative hardship is also considered, therefore, the principles of law laid down in the abovesaid judgments will not help the contention of the appellants. 33. For the aforesaid discussions, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed with costs. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga, in O.S.No.133/2006, is confirmed. (iii) Plaintiff/respondent shall deposit Rs.3 lakhs within two months from the date of decree before the trial Court. (iv) Defendants shall receive the said balance amount and execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and hand over the possession of the property, failing which, plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. (v) IA.No.3/2011, filed by the appellants under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC , is rejected. (vi) Draw decree accordingly. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with records to the concerned Court without delay.