( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. Subba Rao, counsel representing the appellant and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) PUSHPAGIRI Mutt, represented by its Manager, defendant in the suit, is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit for the purpose of convenience.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 49/84 on the file of subordinate Judge, Penukonda, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10-1-1983 by the defendant and to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property for Rs. 11,200/- and for costs and also for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

( 4 ) THE factual matrix as narrated in the respective pleadings of the parties can be specified as hereunder.

( 5 ) IT was pleaded in the plaint that the defendant advertised that the suit land would be sold in public auction to the highest bidder on 10-1-1983 at Krishnapuram village by its G. P. A. holder after obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Board, Kurnool. It was also pleaded that the said G. P. A. holder of the defendant Mutt along with Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Anantapur and Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kurnool held public auction on 10-1-1983 at 9 a. m. according to the conditions of public auction published by them in the said public auction. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, along with eight other persons, participated by depositing Rs. 500/- each with the G. P. A. holder of the defendant and ultimately the plaintiff became the highest bidder for Rs. 11,200/- and the bid was knocked down in her favour for Rs. 11,200/ -. Thus the plaintiff became highest bidder and sale was knocked in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in addition to the amount of Rs. 500/- which was already deposited had paid Rs. 2000/- as part of the bid amount. Thus the plaintiff has paid Rs. 2500/- towards the sale price and defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for Rs. 11,200/- and received Rs. 2500/- as the sale price by knocking down the bid in favour of the plaintiff on 10-1-1983 in Krishnapuram village and agreed to get the necessary sale deed executed and get it registered at the expenses of the plaintiff after receiving the balance of consideration of Rs. 8700/ -. The plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform her part of agreement but the defendant has been postponing the same on some pretext or other and in fact the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance of consideration and take necessary sale deed. A lawyer s notice was also got issued to the defendant as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool and Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner and the defendant received the same, but have not replied for it and the acknowledgement with regard to registered notice sent to the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad had not been received.

( 6 ) THE defendant filed a written statement admitting the public auction held on 10-1-1983. It was also admitted that the plaintiff became the highest bidder for Rs. 11,200/- in the public auction and the sale was knocked down in her favour and she had paid Rs. 2500/- on that day. It was further pleaded that as per condition No. 3 of the sale conditions which were read over to intending bidders including the plaintiff, the auction held on 10-1-1983 by the agent of the defendant was subject to confirmation by the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad. The said condition is mandatory and binding on the plaintiff. On 13-1-1983, the Manager of the defendant Mutt sent up a report to the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad requesting him to approve the sale held on 10-1-1983 clearly sta