JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts passed in O.S.No.96/2006 on 22.12.2009 wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of specific performance and directed the defendant to execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving balance consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- within three months and also made it clear that if the defendant fails to execute the registered sale deed as directed, after the expiry of three months, the plaintiffs are at liberty to apply for appointment of Court Commissioner for the purpose of execution of the sale deeds in their favour and the said judgment and decree was challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.65/2010 and the First Appellate Court having considered the material on record as well as grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points and also taken note of the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by the respondents/plaintiffs that is I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered point No1 as affirmative and point Nos.2 to 4 as negative no need to receive the additional documents and the same is not requires for consideration for germane issues involved in the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court is not justified in holding that plaintiffs are entitled to discretionary relief of decree of specific performance without appreciating the additional documents produced before it and the counsel contend that both the Courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit for specific performance of plaintiffs which his opposed to Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act by granting discretionary relief of specific performance of agreements to sale dated 15.07.2006 and the counsel submits that the evidence of PW5 is not in coronary with the evidence of PW1 to 4. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the total area of the property is agreed as 5 acres 20 guntas in terms of Ex.P1 and also in terms of Ex.P5, 3 acres 21 guntas, in total 9 acres 2 guntas and the sale agreement is also in favour of son as well as mother. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is an endorsement with regard to the enhancement of sale consideration in one of the agreements. The counsel would vehemently contend that larger extent of property was agreed to be sold as per the plaintiffs for meager sale consideration and same has not been considered by both the Courts and hence, both the Courts have committed an error and same requires interference and thus, admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that though there were two sale agreements, same are in favour of mother and son and evidence of witnesses is very clear that the agreement was executed and sale consideration was also received and for enhancement of additional amount also, there is an endorsement in the document itself and same is considered by both the Courts. The Trial Court also taken note of admission on the part of DW1 that the defendant and her children are settled at Bangalore and at that time, cost of living was high and the same goes to show that the defendant was in need of money. Further DW1 has admitted that it is very difficult to get the suit lands cultivated traveling from Bengaluru and taking all these into consideration it can safely be held that the defendant has entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for sale of suit schedule property. The payment of additional advance amount of Rs.75,000/- and issuance of notice as per Ex.P7, calling upon the defendant to come and execute registered sale deed by receiving balance consideration amount shows that the plaintiffs have established that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Both the Courts also taken note of reply given by the defendants wherein they have admitted the execution of the document and also taken note of the evidence of witness who have denied the very signature available in the document and though alleged undue influence sought, the same is not substantiated. 5. Both the Courts also taken note of reply given by the defendants wherein they have admitted the execution of the document and also taken note of the evidence of witness who have denied the very signature available in the document and though alleged undue influence sought, the same is not substantiated. 5. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record in detail discussed in paragraphs 17 and 18 and also taken into note of evidence of DW1 wherein he categorically admitted that the plaintiffs are strangers to her and schedule property belongs to her and she also admitted her signature in plaint but she denied signature in Ex.P1 and P5 i.e., sale agreements. In another breath they contend that signatures were taken under undue influence and coercion. In one breath they admits their signature and in another breath, they denied their signatures and also contend that the signatures were taken by coercion but same is not been explained and detail discussion was made paragraph 18 and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court taking note of two sale agreements at Ex.P1 and P5 dated 15.07.2006. In paragraph 22, taken note of the fact that whether the plaintiffs are entitled for other alternative relief and the same was discussed and taken note of that under Ex.P1 and P5, the defendant received Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.50,000/- each and an endorsement in Ex.P5 shows that again she received Rs.75,000/-. As per agreements of sale at Ex.P1 and P5, the total sale consideration is Rs.1,66,000/- and Rs.1,06,000/- i.e., total sale consideration is Rs.2,72,000/- and out of which, Rs.1,75,000/- has been paid and the plaintiffs have agreed to pay excess of Rs.38,000/-. According to them, after payment of Rs.1,75,000/-, remaining amount was Rs.97,000/-. In view of agreed to pay further additional amount of Rs.38,000/-, the remaining amount is Rs.1,35,000/-. It shows that the plaintiffs have paid more than 50% of the sale consideration. According to them, after payment of Rs.1,75,000/-, remaining amount was Rs.97,000/-. In view of agreed to pay further additional amount of Rs.38,000/-, the remaining amount is Rs.1,35,000/-. It shows that the plaintiffs have paid more than 50% of the sale consideration. In considering Point Nos.2 and 3 regarding applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC also, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that when there was a judgment and decree of specific performance and subsequent to filing of the suit, partitioning the property and compromising the suit will not comes to the aid either to the appellant or to the respondent to decide the germane issues involved in the appeal and rejected the same and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and also taking into note of the conduct of the defendant wherein at once denies the signature at Ex.P1 and P5 but in the reply notice admits the signature and only contention taken that forcefully taken the signature. But the endorsement at the document clearly discloses that even after execution of the sale agreement, agreed to receive additional amount of Rs.38,000/- apart from the sale consideration which was agreed and received the additional amount of Rs.75,000/-. When such being the case, the Trial Court taken note of the very conduct of the defendant and not accepted the defence of the defendant. Both the Courts taken note of the fact that though defendant contend that undue influence was used and forcefully taken the signature, same was not explained by the defendant by placing cogent evidence in this regard and the Courts comes to the conclusion that denying of signature at Ex.P1 and P5 is to make wrongful gain since the defendant admitted the signature found in reply notice but denied the signature at Ex.P1 and P5 as well as on the summons. In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1999) 6 SCC 104 in the case of K.S. Satyanarayana vs. V.R. Narayana Rao , the defendant denied the signature in the sale agreement as well as in the vakalathnama which was filed before the Court. In the case on hand also, the defendant denied the signature on the summons and also at Ex.P1 and P5 but admitted the same in the reply notice given by the defendant. In the case on hand also, the defendant denied the signature on the summons and also at Ex.P1 and P5 but admitted the same in the reply notice given by the defendant. Hence, the said judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal framing substantial questions of law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.