JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J. - This Civil Appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.8.2002 passed in C.C.C. Appeal No. 102 of 1997 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by framing certain questions of law and urging grounds in support of the same and prayed to set aside the C.A. No. 628 of 2003 same and restore the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short the 'trial court') in O.S. No. 2112 of 1988.

2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, we would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned to them in the plaint presented before the trial court. Brief facts and necessary legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to examine and find out as to whether the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1 & 2, are the owners of the suit schedule property i.e. mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 15-8-121 to 15-8-123, Feelkhana, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, executed Agreement of Sale dated 8.9.1988 (Ex.A3) agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for consideration of Rs. 6,65,000/-. It is his further case that prior to the execution of Ex.A3 defendant Nos.1 & 2 received Rs. ML 10,000/- from the plaintiff by way of advance money on 14.8.1988 (receipt as per Ex. A2) to which receipt the P.W. 2 (brother of the plaintiff) is an attesting witness and the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 delivered the copies of documents relating to the title deeds of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, marked as Exs. A5 to A8. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he got published the notices as per Exs. A9 and A10 on 29.8.1988 in local dailies, namely, 'Deccan Chronicle' and 'Siasat' inviting objections to the proposed sale in his favour by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of the suit schedule property. In response to the said publication, defendant Nos. 3 to 5 got published notices as per Exs. A11 and A12 dated 3.9.1988 in the very same daily newspapers alleging that they also have got title and interest in the suit schedule property and the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are not legally entitled to sell the same. That apart, the plaintiff also received a telegram (Ex. A18) from an advocate, Bhagwan Das Sharma purported to be issued on behalf of his client Smt. Padma Bai w/o Ram Dev raising objections with regard to the sale of the two mulgies of premises Nos.15-8-121 and 15-8-122. However, the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 received a further advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.9.1988 under receipt Ex. A4 and also executed the Agreement of Sale (Ex. A3) in favour of the plaintiff asserting that they are the true, legal and lawful owners of the suit schedule property. As per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties in the Agreement of Sale, the transaction of sale in respect of the suit schedule property had to be completed within a period of two months and defendant Nos.1 & 2 were to obtain the necessary sanctions and permission from the concerned authorities for completion of the transaction of sale. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,05,000/- was decided to be paid to the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 at the time of registration of the Sale Deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff received a notice dated 4.9.1988 (Ex. A19) from Shri Bhagwan Das Sharma, Advocate alleging that the suit schedule property was agreed to be sold by defendant Nos.1 & 2 in favour of his client, as she was residing in the mulgi No. 15-8-122 as a tenant. Further, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 filed R.C. No.1039 of 1987 on the file of 1st Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against one Bankat Lal which is pending and that the alleged Agreement of Sale in favour of Padma Bai is false. It is further pleaded by him that Shri Bhagwan Da