JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014 passed in R.A.No.70 of 2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur ('First Appellate Court' for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 3, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of ?1,20,000/- and they have received ?20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and executed a sale agreement dated 07.12.2007. The plaintiff demanded defendants No. 1 to 3, to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. Despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract got issued a legal notice dated 23.01.2008. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have received the notice and defendants No.2 and one Kote Rangappa have not claimed the notices. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Kote Rangappa have issued an evasive reply on 04.02.2008. Kote Rangappa died on 20.02.2008. The defendants have denied to receive the sale consideration amount and execute a register sale deed. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 5. Initially, defendant Nos.2 and 3 appeared through the counsel, but did not file a written statement. Subsequently filed an application seeking permission to file a written statement. The said application came to be allowed, subject to payment of cost of ?2,000/-. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to pay the cost, but filed another application seeking reduction of the cost, which was rejected by the trial Court and hence, the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 was not taken on record. 6. The said application came to be allowed, subject to payment of cost of ?2,000/-. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to pay the cost, but filed another application seeking reduction of the cost, which was rejected by the trial Court and hence, the written statement filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 was not taken on record. 6. Defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 have not filed a written statement. 7. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. It is also contended that they have executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and received the earnest money. It is contended that they are ready to execute the registered sale deed as per the terms and conditions of the sale agreement dated 07.12.2007 in favour of the plaintiff, in case defendant Nos.1 to 3, and 6 and 7 co-operate for execution of the sale. Hence, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 9. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The defendants neither led oral nor documentary evidence. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 14.06.2012. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in OS No.323 of 2008, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.70 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur. 11. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of a plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount within 3 months from the date of the judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed in accordance with law and further the defendants are permanently restrained from alienating or parting with the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of third party and altering the nature of the suit schedule property. 12. 12. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.70 of 2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 13. Heard the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3. 14. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that the plaintiff had paid ?20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and he has failed to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff did not fulfil the requirements of Section 16(c) of the specific relief Act. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3. 16. It is an undisputed fact that the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of ?1,20,000/- and they received ?20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and executed a sale agreement on 07.12.2007 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed, despite the request made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not come forward to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. 17. The plaintiff, to prove that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract got issued a legal notice to the defendants, on 23.01.2008. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 and Kote Rangappa issued a reply on 04.08.2008 denying the execution of the registered sale agreement. Further, defendant Nos. 4 and 5 filed a written statement admitting regarding the execution of the sale agreement by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and receipt of ?20,000/- towards advance sale consideration amount. 18. Though the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale agreement examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, who have deposed that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of ?1,20,000/- and the plaintiff paid ?20,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff produced the legal notice marked as Ex.P4 and P12, which disclose that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff produced the legal notice marked as Ex.P4 and P12, which disclose that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The trial Court has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff has not pleaded that in the case if the suit is dismissed, the plaintiff will be put to hardship than the defendants. 19. As per Section 20 of the specific relief Act, the burden is always on the defendants to prove that in case if the suit for specific performance is granted the defendants will be put to more hardship than the plaintiff. I have perused the written statement filed by the defendants except defendant Nos.4 and 5, none of the defendants have filed a written statement nor they have entered the witness box to establish that in case the suit for specific performance of contract is decreed, the defendants will be put to hardship. In the absence of the pleading and proof, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit for the specific performance of a contract. The trial Court has failed to consider the well established principles of law. 20. Though the trial Court has not framed proper issues, the First Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, has held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of a sale agreement by the defendants and the plaintiff has proved that he was/is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and further recorded a finding that the trial Court has not framed an issue regarding the hardship. In the absence of issues, the trial Court has dismissed the suit only on the ground of hardship. 21. The First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. 22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed ii. The judgment passed in R.A.No.70/2012 is hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly.