JUDGMENT : (ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed in R.A.No.181/2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.84/1, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, situated at Lalitadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 entered into a sale agreement dated 12.01.2002 with the plaintiff society for alienating the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre. At the time of the execution of a sale agreement, defendants No.1 to 3 received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount and pleaded that they require one year time to complete the sale transaction, as there are valuable Mango and Coconut trees in the said land. After the execution of the sale agreement, defendants No.1 to 3 received the further amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.2003 and 07.01.2003 respectively from the plaintiff society as a part consideration amount and went on dodging the matter on one or the other pretext. In total, the defendants have received Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society requested defendants No.1 to 3 to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed, but, defendants No. 1 to 3 did not come forward to complete the sale transaction. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 illegally on 25.01.2006 for a higher price. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendants No.1 to 3 have filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint execution of a sale agreement and receiving of part consideration amount regarding suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for the specific performance of a contract. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendants No.1 to 3 have filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint execution of a sale agreement and receiving of part consideration amount regarding suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit property is the joint family property owned and possessed by the family members of defendant No.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 have no right to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff society or execute any sale agreement. It is contended that the plaintiff society obtained the signatures of the few members of defendant No.1 family with a malafide intention. It is contended that the alleged agreement of sale is inoperative and not maintainable, as the plaintiff society has not complied with the terms and the suit filed by the plaintiff society is barred by limitation. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for mis- joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. 5. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have executed a registered sale deed conveying the other joint family properties in favour of the plaintiff society. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have never agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff society. It is contended that the alleged Oppanda Patra is a document that does not cast any liability on defendants No.1 to 3, nor have defendants No.1 to 3 executed any such document. Defendants No.1 to 3 have retained the suit schedule property. No negotiations were held regarding the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule property and the other properties were notified for acquisition. Defendants No.1 to 3 have not executed any agreement to facilitate the de-notification of the acquisition of the schedule property and abutting lands before the Government. The plaintiff society, with a malafide intention, included the suit schedule property in the proceedings initiated before the Government for de- notification. The suit schedule property was one of the lands, which was de-notified. 6. The plaintiff society, being a registered society, is required to obtain necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner for purchasing the agricultural land, as contemplated under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short Act). The suit schedule property was one of the lands, which was de-notified. 6. The plaintiff society, being a registered society, is required to obtain necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner for purchasing the agricultural land, as contemplated under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short Act). The plaintiffs have not obtained the necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3, as well as the other coparceners, have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.4, on 25.01.2006. The plaintiff was aware of the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4. It is contended that the plaintiff submitted the representation to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA for short) intimating that several of the lands, which were proposed to be acquired by the plaintiff society and subsequently, not acquired by MUDA, Mysuru. The suit schedule property is also listed in the said communication. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is an afterthought and defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: ISSUES 1) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant No.1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale of schedule property on 12.1.2002 for consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre and paid Rs.15,000/- as an earnest amount? 2) Whether plaintiffs prove that he has paid Rs.15,000/- on 4.1.2003 to defendant No.1 to 3 as additional advance amount? 3) Whether plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 4) Whether defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation? 5) Whether defendants proves that the plaintiff has obtained their signature indicating that he is going to obtain permission from authorities and concocted the same as sale agreement? 6) Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 7) Whether defendants proves that the suit itself is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para 5 of the written statement? 8) Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? 9) What order or decree? Additional issues framed on 6.11.2006 1) Whether defendant No.4 proves that he is bonafide purchaser of suit property without notice? 7) Whether defendants proves that the suit itself is not maintainable for the reasons stated in para 5 of the written statement? 8) Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract? 9) What order or decree? Additional issues framed on 6.11.2006 1) Whether defendant No.4 proves that he is bonafide purchaser of suit property without notice? Additional issues framed on 6.2.2013 1) Whether the plaintiff entitle for the relief of declaration for the sale deed dated 25.1.2006 executed by the defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on him? 2) Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 8. The plaintiff society, to prove its case, examined one Nanjundegowda as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 8 documents Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the other hand defendant No.3 was examined as DW- 1, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-2, examined 4 witnesses as DW-3 to DW-6 and marked 33 documents Exs.D.1 to D.33. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3, 8 and additional issue No.1 framed on 06.02.2013 in the affirmative, issues No.4 to 7 and additional issue No.1 framed on 06.11.2006 and additional issue No.2 framed on 06.02.2013 in the negative and issue No.9 as per the final order. 9. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 16.04.2013 directing the defendants to execute a sale deed regarding the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff society by receiving the balance sale consideration amount within three months from the date of the judgment. It is further ordered that the sale deed dated 25.01.2006 obtained by defendant No.4 is null and void and it is not binding on the plaintiff society. It is further ordered that the plaintiff society shall deposit the balance consideration amount within three months from the date of the judgment. If the defendants are not ready to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff society is at liberty to proceed against the defendants by following due procedure of law. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.816/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.181/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. 10. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:- POINTS 1. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.816/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.181/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. 10. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:- POINTS 1. Whether the lower Court erred in holding that the defendant No.1 to 3 have duly executed Ex.P1 to P3 and had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the conduct of the plaintiff is not equitable? 3. Whether the I.A.No.III deserves to be allowed? 4. Whether the I.A.No.IV deserves to be allowed? 5. Whether the defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser? 6. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference? 7. What order? 11. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered points No.1, 2, 5 and 6 in the affirmative, points No.3 and 4 in the negative and point No.7 as per the final order. The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.816/2006 was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.01.2016. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.181/2013, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. S.R. Krishnamurthy for the plaintiff and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagwat for the defendants. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendants No.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property. They have sold 10 acres and 13 guntas to the plaintiff. Before, defendants No.1 to 3 executed the Oppanda Patra on 12.01.2001, expressing their consent to sell 5 properties to an extent of 10 acres 13 guntas. They have executed a sale deed regarding other lands, except the suit schedule property, i.e., land bearing Sy.No.84/1. He submits that the defendants received Rs.50,000/- towards an advance sale consideration amount and agreed to execute a registered sale deed, after receiving the balance consideration amount. 14. He submits that the Government had proposed to acquire suit land and the other lands. The plaintiff got de-notified the suit land. He submits that the plaintiff requested defendants No.1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount, but defendants No.1 to 3 refused to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff got de-notified the suit land. He submits that the plaintiff requested defendants No.1 to 3 to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount, but defendants No.1 to 3 refused to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount. He submits that the first appellate Court committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not called for, “Oppanda Patra” from the Government and the plaintiff society has not paid the part consideration amount and the developer paid it and the plaintiff society has not produced any book of accounts to prove the payment of advance sale consideration amount. The said conclusion of the first appellate Court is contrary to the records. 15. He further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time. He submits that the plaintiff society has proved that the plaintiff society was/is ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. He submits that defendants No.1 to 3 have admitted their signatures on Ex.P.1 and defence of defendants No.1 to 3 is that the signatures were obtained by playing fraud and further submits that no complaint was lodged and there is no pleading regarding the alleged fraud. He submits that the defendants have raised a defence that the plaintiff society obtained signatures on blank paper and the burden is on the defendants to establish the fraud. 16. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of P. Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambanadan reported in (2022) 14 SCC 793 , and K. Prakash Vs. B.R. Sampath Kumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 597 He submits that the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 17. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagawat submits that there is no privity of a contract between the plaintiff society and defendants No.1 to 3 regarding the suit schedule property. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 17. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.S. Bhagawat submits that there is no privity of a contract between the plaintiff society and defendants No.1 to 3 regarding the suit schedule property. He submits that defendants No.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 25.01.2006 and plaintiff society filed an application seeking amendment to the plaint challenging the registered sale deed dated 25.01.2006 on 04.01.2013 after seven years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff society for declaring the registered sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4 as null and void and is barred by limitation. He also submits that the alleged ‘sale agreement’ was executed on 12.01.2002 and the suit was filed on 20.07.2006. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff society was/is ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. 18. He also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties. He submits that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of defendants No.1 to 3 and the other coparceners. He also submits that the trial Court answered issue No.4 in the negative. The plaintiff has not challenged the findings recorded on issue No.4. He submits that when the trial Court records a finding that the suit is barred by limitation, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, on the contrary, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit. 19. He also submits that the plaintiff society has not paid the alleged advance sale consideration amount to defendants No.1 to 3. He submits that it is the case of the plaintiff that payment of advance sale consideration amount was paid by the developer. The said pleading is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has not paid an advance sale consideration amount. He submits that it is the case of the plaintiff that payment of advance sale consideration amount was paid by the developer. The said pleading is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has not paid an advance sale consideration amount. He also submits that defendants No.1 to 3 have sold other lands except the suit land in favour of plaintiff society by executing a registered sale deed, but while executing the registered sale deed, the plaintiff society has taken the signatures of defendants No.1 to 3 on the blank paper, misused the blank papers and created Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. 20. He also submits that a written statement was filed on 20.10.2006 wherein, defendants No.1 to 3 have pleaded regarding the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 and the plaintiff has filed an application to amend the plaint seeking the relief of declaration regarding the registered sale deed as null and void on 04.01.2013 and the said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide order dated 29.01.2013. Hence, the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. A suit for declaration is to be filed within 3 years from the date of the cause of action occurs, as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . The sale deed was executed on 25.01.2006. When an instrument is registered, it gives knowledge to the world, as per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 . 21. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi and others Vs. Anand Kumar in SLP(C) 2137/2025 dated 02.04.2025 . He submits that in a suit for specific performance of a contract, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of a sale agreement. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof. He submits that the first appellate Court has considered the evidence on record meticulously and passed impugned judgment. 22. To buttress his arguments, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Ravindranath and another Vs. Sasikala and others reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 1749, L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) rep. by his L.Rs. Vs. H.B. Shivakumar reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 , R. Nagaraj (dead) through LRs. And another Vs. To buttress his arguments, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Ravindranath and another Vs. Sasikala and others reported in 2024 SCCOnline SC 1749, L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) rep. by his L.Rs. Vs. H.B. Shivakumar reported in (2016) 1 SCC 332 , R. Nagaraj (dead) through LRs. And another Vs. Rajmani and others in Civil Appeal No.5131/2025 arising out of SLP (C)No.36/2021 . Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 23. The appeal was admitted, to consider the following Substantial Question of Law: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that Exs.P.1 to 3 do not seem to be genuine though the plaintiff has proved the due execution of the said documents by the defendants No.1 to 3 in his favour and the defendants has failed to establish their claim of misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in refusing the relief for specific performance of contract in the light of plaintiff proving the due execution of the documents at Exs.P.1 to 3, including the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the Contract? 3. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the 4 th defendant was a bonafide purchaser in the light of the fact that the 4 th defendant had purchased the said property having full knowledge of execution of the Exs.1 to 3 between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3? 4. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that documents at Exs.P.1 to 3 do not seem to be genuine in the absence of a foundation being laid by the defendants, who are attacking the said documents? 5. To consider any other question of law which may arise for consideration while hearing the appeal. Reg: Substantial Questions of Law No.1, 2 and 4: 24. Substantial Questions of Law No.1, 2 and 4 are interconnected and hence, they are taken together for common discussion, to avoid the repetition of facts. 25. The plaintiff society examined its Secretary as, PW-1, who deposed that the plaintiff society is a registered housing cooperative society and its objective is to acquire lands, form layouts of residential sites and thereafter allot sites to its employees. 25. The plaintiff society examined its Secretary as, PW-1, who deposed that the plaintiff society is a registered housing cooperative society and its objective is to acquire lands, form layouts of residential sites and thereafter allot sites to its employees. The plaintiff society, after successfully completing its projects at Allanahalli, Nandana Halli village took up its 3 rd project for the formation of sites and residential layouts for the benefits of its members in Lalithadripura Village. The plaintiff society undertook the project in Lalithadripura village, comprising the formation of a huge residential layout comprising about 1200 sites. The society identified the lands for acquisition and formation of residential layout measuring 123 g and acres 8 guntas in Lalithadripura village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru District, the following survey numbers were identified: Sy.Nos.19/1, 19/3, 20/1, 22/2, 22/3, 28/39, 52/1 & 2, 53, 55, 68/2, 70/1, 2, 8, 4, 5, 71/1, 2, 3, 4, 73, 74, 75, 76/1, 76/2, 77/1, 77/2, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82/1, 82/2A, 82/2B, 83/1, 2, 84/1, 2, 85, 86, 88/1, 82/2, 89/1&2 in total 123 acres 8 guntas. 26. The suit schedule property in Sy.No.84/1 was also one of the identified lands for acquisition. The said lands were identified and acquired on the basis of mutual agreements with the land owners. The plaintiff society approached the Government for de-notifying the lands as MUDA had proposed to acquire the aforesaid lands. The State Government considering the request of the plaintiff society de-notified lands including the suit land by the order dated 08.11.2001. 27. Defendants No.1 to 3 owned the lands to the extent of 10 acres and 13 guntas and the same was sold in favour of the plaintiff society on mutual understanding. An agreement dated 12.01.2001, styled as ‘Oppanda Patra’ was executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the lands owned and possessed by them and the plaintiff society has also taken possession of 5 items measuring 10 acres 13 guntas. The ‘Oppanda Patra’ was surrendered to the Government of Karnataka at the time the de-notification order was passed. The ‘Oppanda Patra’ was surrendered to the Government of Karnataka at the time the de-notification order was passed. Defendants No. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff society and executed a sale agreement on 12.01.2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre and on the date of execution of the sale agreement defendants No.1 to 3 received Rs.15,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount. Defendants No.1 to 3 pleaded that they require one year time to complete the sale transaction as there are Mango and Coconut trees in the suit schedule property. 28. After the execution of a sale agreement dated 12.01.2002, defendants No.1 to 3 vide communication dated 04.01.2003 sought for an extension of time for another 8 months for the completion of sale transaction. On 01.07.2003 the plaintiff paid an additional advance sale consideration and sought for extension of time by another six months. Thus, the plaintiff society paid Rs.50,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It is contended that the plaintiff society was/is always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract but defendants No.1 to 3 have not performed their part of contract. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 25.01.2006, thereby depriving the legitimate rights of the plaintiff. 29. The plaintiff society to substantiate its case produced the documents. Ex.P.1 is the sale agreement dated 12.01.2002 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff society agreeing to sell suit schedule property at the price of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre, the plaintiff society paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount at the time of registration of sale deed. Ex.P.2 is the communication dated 01.07.2003 issued by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of Rs.50,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount, and requested the time of six months to execute a registered sale deed. Ex.P.3 is the letter dated 04.01.2003 issued by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff society acknowledging the receipt of Rs.30,000/- as the further consideration amount and sought a time of 8 months to execute a registered sale deed. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the order of denotification, wherein the Government of Karnataka identified the lands, including the suit schedule property. Ex.P.4 is the copy of the order of denotification, wherein the Government of Karnataka identified the lands, including the suit schedule property. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 25.01.2002 executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4. Ex.P.6 is the copy of the record of rights regarding the suit property standing in the name of Puttalingaiah. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the record of rights standing in the name of defendant No.4. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the layout plan. 30. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that defendants No.1 to 3 have not executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff society and also admit that the plaintiff society has not approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking permission under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He also admits that before filing the suit, the plaintiff society had not issued a notice or paper publication and that he had not obtained a consent letter before the “Oppanda Patra” dated 12.01.2001. The plaintiff society examined one Thomas as PW-2 who deposed that he is working with M/s. S.R. Constructions, Mysuru which is indulged in the development of layouts. The said M/s. S.R. Constructions has undertaken several projects of the plaintiff society for the development of layouts. 31. On 12.01.2002, he went to the office of the plaintiff society, where defendants No.1 to 3 were present. PW-1 was also present and another person by name Somashekhar was also present. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed a sale agreement in his presence and a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by cash to defendants No.1 to 3 by PW-1 and defendant No.1 signed the agreement. Subsequently, defendants No.2 and 3 affixed their signatures on the sale agreement in his presence and he affixed his signature as an attesting witness on Ex.P.1. The defendants sought an extension of the time and the plaintiff society has paid Rs.20,000/- in his presence and he has attested letters dated 01.04.2003 and 01.07.2003. 32. During the cross-examination, he pleads ignorance regarding the survey number of land owned by defendant No.1 and elicits that the sale talks took place only regarding the suit land and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were written by the clerk. He does not know the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3. 32. During the cross-examination, he pleads ignorance regarding the survey number of land owned by defendant No.1 and elicits that the sale talks took place only regarding the suit land and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were written by the clerk. He does not know the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3. He pleads ignorance as to the consideration amount agreed by the parties and he does not remember that there was any agreement between the parties and it is elicited that he does not remember for which survey number Exs.P.2 and P.3 were executed. 33. In rebuttal defendant No.3 was examined as DW-1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. He has denied regarding the “Oppanda Patra”, receipt of Rs.50,000/- as well as the execution of Exs.P.1 to P.3. He deposed that the plaintiff obtained signatures on the blank papers and misused them. Defendants No.1 to 3 have not received any amount as alleged by the plaintiff society in the plaint. Defendants No.1 to 3 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 by executing a registered sale deed on 25.01.2006. The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. During the cross examination, it was suggested that defendants No.1 to 3 executed Exs.P.1 to P.3. The said suggestion was denied by DW-1. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW-2. Examination-in-chief of the DW-2 is the replica of the examination-in-chief of DW-1. The defendant also examined the Officials of the Deputy Commissioner, who have deposed that the plaintiff has not obtained a permission under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 34. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is noted that it is the case of the plaintiff society that defendants No.1 to 3 executed a sale agreement agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff society for a price of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre and the plaintiff society paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the date of the execution of the sale agreement. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed Ex.P.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 issued an acknowledgement for having received the advance consideration amount as per Ex.P.2 and P.3. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed Ex.P.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 issued an acknowledgement for having received the advance consideration amount as per Ex.P.2 and P.3. Though, it is the case of the plaintiff society that the plaintiff society has paid a consideration amount, PW-1 in the evidence has deposed that plaintiff society has not paid the advance sale consideration amount to defendants No.1 to 3, but M/s. S. R. Constructions/developer paid the advance sale consideration amount. However, PW-2 has not stated that the said amount was paid by M/s. S.R. Constructions. PW- 2 is working in M/s. S.R. Constructions company. PW-2 has also not produced any account books to show/establish that the sale advance consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by M/s. S.R. Construction Company. 35. Further I have perused Ex.P.1. The contents of Ex.P.1 is reproduced here as under: 36. Further to prove the contents of Ex.P.1, the plaintiff society has not produced any Oppanda Patra. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said document was produced before the Government in the denotification proceedings. When the defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of “Oppanda Patra”, the burden was on the plaintiff to call for the said “Oppanda Patra” from the Government. The plaintiff society has not taken any steps to secure “Oppanda Patra” from the Government. The entire case of the plaintiff stands on the Oppanda Patra which is not produced before the Court. 37. Further, the plaintiff has not examined Somashekar, who was present at the time of the alleged sale talks. For the non-production of Oppanda Patra, an adverse inference has to be drawn under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . The first appellate Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the plaintiff society for the non-production of “Oppanda Patra” and further PW-1, in the course of cross-examination has stated that the defendants have not executed an agreement of sale regarding the said property. Further, PW-1, also admitted that before the filing of the suit they have not issued any legal notice. The said admission of PW-1 clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the sale agreement regarding the suit schedule property by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff society. 38. Further, PW-1, also admitted that before the filing of the suit they have not issued any legal notice. The said admission of PW-1 clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the sale agreement regarding the suit schedule property by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff society. 38. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff society had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount and received acknowledgement marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3. To corroborate Exs.P.2 and P.3 the plaintiff society has not produced any records to demonstrate regarding the payment of an advance sale consideration amount. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that the developer paid the said amount. However, the plaintiff examined the official of the M/s. S.R. Constructions as PW-2, PW-2 has not produced any records to show that he was the employee of the M/s. S.R. Constructions and M/s. S.R. Constructions has paid the advance sale consideration amount. M/s.S.R. Constructions has not produced any books of account to establish that they have paid the advance sale consideration amount. The plaintiff has failed to establish the payment of the sale consideration amount. 39. Though, according to the case of the plaintiff, the alleged sale agreement was executed on 12.01.2002. The plaintiff has not issued any legal notice to defendants No.1 to 3, calling upon them to receive the balance consideration amount and execute a registered sale deed. To prove readiness and willingness, the plaintiff has not produced any statement of accounts to establish that the plaintiff society possessed the sufficient funds for the payment of the balance sale consideration amount. The suit was filed in 2006. The plaintiff has not explained the cause for filing the suit in 2006. Thus, the plaintiff society has failed to establish its readiness and willingness. 40. Further, the first appellate Court has also recorded its finding regarding the genuineness of Exs.P.1 and P.2. That in Exs.P.2 and P.3, a large space is left at the top. The plaintiff has not explained the cause for filing the suit in 2006. Thus, the plaintiff society has failed to establish its readiness and willingness. 40. Further, the first appellate Court has also recorded its finding regarding the genuineness of Exs.P.1 and P.2. That in Exs.P.2 and P.3, a large space is left at the top. The seal and signature of the Secretary is put at the extreme bottom portion of the Ex.P.2 and in Ex.P.3, which finds its place in a narrow space and there was no reason to leave the space at the top of Exs.P.2 and P.3 and if the said documents were to be typed from the top there was no necessity of the Secretary of the plaintiff to put his seal and signature in a congested space and further, PW-1 has stated that documents were got typed by defendants No.1 to 3. There is time gap of six months in between Exs.P.2 and P.3. 41. As observed above, the suit is one for the specific performance of a contract. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale agreement and the payment of the advance sale consideration amount. If the plaintiff discharges the burden of proof, the burden shifts to the defendants. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement and the payment of consideration amount. Hence, the question of the defendants establishing the claim of misrepresentation does not arise. Thus, documents Ex.P.1 to P.3, as produced by the plaintiffs society, are concocted and created to suit its illegal claim. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions of law Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative. Reg: Substantial question of law No.3: 42. The trial Court answered issue No.4 in the negative holding that the defendants have proved that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, instead it decreed the suit. The finding recorded on issue No.4 was not challenged by the plaintiff. The said finding has attained finality. 43. The trial Court answered issue No.4 in the negative holding that the defendants have proved that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, instead it decreed the suit. The finding recorded on issue No.4 was not challenged by the plaintiff. The said finding has attained finality. 43. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Daivasigamani (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere delay alone in filing a suit for specific performance without reference to the conduct of a vendee, cannot be ground for refusing the relief, when the suit is filed within statutory time-limit by the vendee. Admittedly, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of a sale agreement and the suit was filed more than 5 years after the date of execution of the sale agreement. The suit is not filed within the statutory time and the plaintiff sought for an amendment seeking a relief of declaration after 7 years from the date of filing of the written statement by the defendants. The relief of declaration that the registered sale deed, is null and void and not binding, is barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . The plaintiff has not filed an application for an amendment to the plaint within three years from the date of filing the written statement. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff does not apply to the case on hand. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakash (supra). There is no dispute regarding the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act . 44. As observed in substantial questions of law No.1, 2 and 4, since the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of a sale agreement, payment of a sale consideration amount to defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.4 on 25.01.2006. Defendant No.4, after verifying the entire records had purchased the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser for a value, without notice. The first appellate Court was justified in recording its finding that defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser. Defendants No.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.4 on 25.01.2006. Defendant No.4, after verifying the entire records had purchased the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser for a value, without notice. The first appellate Court was justified in recording its finding that defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No. 3 in the affirmative.45. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed by the first appellate Court in RA.No.181/2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru is confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of.