( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit OS No. 2070/90 on the file of III assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of specific performance of contract of agreement of sale praying the Court to direct the appellant herein/ defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and also to deliver possession of the said property. The suit was decreed by the learned Judge, with costs by judgment dated 8-7-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful defendant had carried the matter by way of Appeal A. S. No. 202/96 on the file of n Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court Hyderabad and by judgment dated 4-8-2000, the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second appeal was preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below.

( 2 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether a decree for specific performance can be granted on the strength of a document like Ex. A-1 wherein there is no recital about the price at which the property is agreed to be sold and is not such a document hit by uncertainty as contemplated by Section 29 of the Indian Contract act, 1872?2. Whether Ex. A-1 is hit by Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 inasmuch as it does not contain the essential terms, particularly, the price at which the property was agreed to be sold and can a specific performance decree be passed on the basis of Ex. A-3 which is said to be continuation of Ex. A-1 when Ex. A-1 is hit by uncertainty. Can Ex. A-3 stand as a suit document if Ex. A-1 is excluded from consideration ?3. When the terms and conditions of a contract are reduced to writing, can the Courts below go into oral evidence for substantiating the documents which would be contrary to Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?4. Whether the suit is within limitation ?5. Whether the Courts below had exercised the discretion properly in granting the relief of specific performance in favour of respondent/ plaintiff?6. Whether the appellate Court had framed the Points for consideration in conformity with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?7. Whether in the light of the findings recorded by the appellate Court it is a fit matter for remand?the learned Counsel after pointing out these questions of law as substantial questions of law, made elaborate submissions about the respective pleadings of the parties and also findings recorded by the court of first instance and also by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel would maintain that though Ex. A-1 is not in controversy, there is dispute relating to ex. A-3 and in fact Ex. A-1 was superseded by Ex. A-3 by virtue of novation of contract and in the light of Ex. A-3, Ex. A-1 would fall into insignificance. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the relevant portions of both Exs. A-1 and A-3 and would maintain that in the light of the terms and conditions it should be taken that these documents cannot be enforced for granting the relief of specific performance in view of section 29 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. The learned Counsel also had taken this court through Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and also would contend that Ex. A-1 got merged with Ex. A-3. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to the terms and conditions specified in Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-3 and would contend that those terms and conditions alone may have to be looked into for the purposes of deciding the question in controversy and oral evidence cannot be considered in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned Counsel also had commented on the question of limitation and would maintain that correct findings had not been recorded in this regard. The learned Counsel also