In a civil suit concerning the sale of agricultural land, the plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement. The defendants (now appellants) had previously given an undertaking not to sell or transfer the property without court permission but later entered into an agreement to sell the land to a third party, M/s Aishwarya Constructions. The plaintiffs alleged that this agreement breached the undertaking, leading the trial court to strike off the defendants' defense.

Appellants' Argument:
The appellants contended that merely entering into an agreement to sell did not amount to a sale or transfer since no registered deed was executed. They argued that they did not breach the undertaking as no possession of the land was transferred to the third party, and they eventually canceled the agreement.

Key Issue:
The central issue was whether the agreement to sell, without a registered deed or actual transfer of ownership, constituted a breach of the undertaking not to sell, transfer, or alienate the property.

Trial Court's Findings:
The trial court, based on additional contents found in a document related to the agreement, concluded that the defendants had transferred possession of the land to the third party and had therefore violated their undertaking. The trial court struck off the defense of the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Appellate Court's Analysis:
The appellate court found discrepancies in the documents, particularly regarding the additional contents that were missing in the original document but appeared in other copies. The court emphasized that without reliable evidence on who added these contents, it was inappropriate to conclude that the defendants had breached their undertaking. Moreover, the appellate court noted that striking off the defense at such a late stage, after cross-examination based on the defense had been conducted, would create unnecessary complications.

Conclusion:
The appellate court determined that the trial court's decision to strike off the defense was harsh and not supported by the facts. It quashed the trial court's order, allowing the defense to stand, and directed the trial court to decide the case on its merits.