( 1 ) JUDGMENT :the unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-11-1991 in o. S. No. 119 of 1984 passed by the learned additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale dated 10-9-1978. The factual matrix is expedient to be set forth at the outset:

( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff, inter alia, in the plaint that the defendant having agreed to sell the premises bearing municipal No. 21-7-600 together with the appurtenant open land more fully described in the Schedule appended to the plaint executed a sale agreement on 10-9-1978 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and received an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money and passed a separate receipt of even date. The property covered by the said agreement was subject matter of litigation since 1975 in between the defendant and one malkaiah, inasmuch as the defendant had transferred the said property under a registered sale deed dated 24-4-1971 in favour of the said Malkaiah with a condition of re-conveyance of the same and as the said Malkaiah refused to transfer the property pursuant to the said covenant, and in connection therewith the defendant filed a suit which ultimately ended in the Supreme court. It was agreed, inter alia, in the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was to be executed and registered within one month of re-conveyance of the property by the said Malkaiah in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was then in possession of the suit house as tenant under the said Malkaiah, and, therefore, it was agreed upon not to evict the plaintiff through Court in execution of the decree obtained by the defendant against the said Malkaiah and also to deliver possession of the appurtenant open land by the defendant to the plaintiff after taking possession of the same from the said malkaiah.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff came to know that the defendant will take possession of the house from her while executing the decree in E. P. No. 151 of 1979 against the said Malkaiah. Therefore, the plaintiff filed E. A. No. 189 of 1981 requesting the Court not to evict her in view of the clause in the agreement. However, the said claim petition was dismissed on 26-6-1982 on the premise that the property was not re-conveyed to the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff s rights could not be worked out. On enquiry made on 29-1-1983, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant obtained re-conveyance deed through Court on 15-10-1982 and the defendant failed to inform the same to the plaintiff so as to enable her to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a telegram dated 30-1-1983 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed and register the same, failing which a suit would be filed. The plaintiff further stated that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. In confirmation thereof, a notice was sent by post. The defendant having received the said notice failed to respond. Hence, the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement alleging inter alia that the alleged agreement of sale dated 10-9-1978 was executed only by way of a security for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-borrowed from the plaintiff by the defendant in connection with the litigation between her and the said Malkaiah. The defendant was in need of finance to contest the suit O. S. No. 1860 of 1975 filed by her for specific performance against the said Malkaiah. The defendant had to approach one Anjaiah for money. The said Anjaiah, who, in fact, had close relations with the plaintiff paid the said amount of Rs. 5,000/-, but not the plaintiff and