G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals can be decided by a common judgment as they arise out of a common judgment and decree of the lower Court in os No. 417 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE facts and the events leading to the filing of the appeals is narrated hereinafter.

( 3 ) THE parties as arrayed in the suit are referred to in this judgment for the sake of convenience.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff laid a suit OS No. 417 of 1991 seeking specific performance of agreement of Sale dated 12-3-1990 and memorandum of Understanding dated 12-4-1990 and for direction to the defendants no. l and 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He also sought for the relief of possession and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant No. l from interfering with the suit schedule property.

( 5 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint one Smt. Mathuri Hymavathi, wife of ranga Rao was the absolute owner of the premises of the House bearing No. 3-6-539/ 1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad admeasuring 313 sq. yds. The building was a terrace building. While so, the said Mathur hymavathi executed a registered sale deed dated 21-1-1984 conveying the terrace rights in favour of the plaintiff consisting of terrance portion 1,461 sq. fts. (157. 30 sq. yds.) subsequently, on 30-4-1985, Mathuri hymavathi executed a rectification deed by adding the proportionate undivided share in the land to the extent of 120 sq. yds.

( 6 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, hymavathi died on 11-5-1985. Consequently the property devolved on her husband Ranga rao and her adopted son M. Anantha Ram defendant No. 1. Since the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the ground floor as well as the remaining land from the defendant No. 1 and ranga Rao an agreement was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant no. l on 12-3-1990 for the purchase of the ground floor along with the land for consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs. This agreement was signed by M. Ranga Rao, defendant no. 1 also signed the said agreement accepting the sale agreement. Subsequently, a memorandum of Understanding was executed by Ranga Rao and defendant No. 1 on 12-4-1990. As per the understanding, the consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs has to be paid as follows: rs. 50,000/- was paid on 12-4-1990 and on the date of the registration namely 30-10-1990, a sum of Rs. l lakh has to be paid, the balance sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- bears interest @ 7. 50% per month from 30-10-1990 and Rs. 1,100/- per month from 1-4-1991 till 31-7-1991, the date fixed for payment of the balance amount.

( 7 ) WHILE so, Ranga Rao died in july, 1990. According to the Memorandum of Understanding Plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 were to meet on 14-10-1990 to discuss about the payment. Since, the defendant no. l did not go for the meeting, Plaintiff issued notice dated 11-11-1990 to which no reply was issued by the defendant No. l. However, defendant No. 1 issued notice on 6-5-1990 with a false claim on the basis of a false agreement dated 12-4-1990. Therefore, the plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12-3-1990 read with Memorandum of understanding dated 12-4-1990.

( 8 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff with a mala fide intention and taking advantage of the close relationship of the plaintiff created documents. Defendant No. 1 also stated that the Agreement of Sale dated 12-3-1990 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 1-2-4-1990 are not binding. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 issued a legal notice on 6-5-1991 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,99,000/ - and as the plaintiff failed to perform the part of the obligation, defendant No. 1 was forced to sell the property to defendant No. 2 to meet his pressing financial needs. It is also the case of the defendant No. 1 that the agreement of Sale dated 12-4-1990 is tampered and it is false and baseless. The original agreement was not produced and that there was no cause of action to file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document