( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9-11-1992 passed by the learned Principal Sub-ordi-nate Judge, narasaraopet in O. S. 117 of 1983. Respondents 1 to 3 are defendants in the suit, respondents 4 to 8 have been added as legal representatives of the first respondent, who since died, pending consideration of the suit.

( 2 ) A common judgment was passed in o. S. 117 of 1983 and O. S. 257 of 1984 by the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, narsaraopet as the parties are same in both the suits. Evidence was recorded in O. S. 117 of 1983, and the same was read in evidence in the later suit. After considering the evidence , both oral and documentary the Court below dismissed O. S. 117 of 1983 and decreed o. S. 257 of 1984. The appellant therefore is now assailing the Judgment and Decree O. S. No. 117 of 1983 alone.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract of sale dated 31-1-1981. It is the case of plaintiff that late Garre Venkata Ramakotiah, father of the first defendant leased out the plaint schedule mentioned lands to the plaintiff on 29-4-1980, and ever since, the same, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying maktha regularly to Sri Venkata Ramakotaiah and subsequently to defendants 1 to 3 who are the son, wife and married daughter of late sri Venkata Ramakotaiah respectively. Late ramakotaiah had to spend huge amounts for his ailment and he contemplated to sell the plaint schedule mentioned lands and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same, as he had been in possession of the same as tenant for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. 00. On 31-1-1981 the plaintiff paid an amount of rs. 28,000/- as an advance and the suit agreement of sale was executed on that day at Narsaraopet in the house of third defendant. It was agreed inter alia in the agreement to execute the sale deed after expiry of the lease period by 20-4-1983 and after receiving the balance sale consideration of rs. 2000/ -. But in the meanwhile , Venkata rama Kotaiah died in the month of April, 1981 and defendants 1 to 3 succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants calling them upon to attend the registration office on 22-4-1983 and to execute the sale deed and to get it registered. The defendants having received the said notice failed to attend the Registrar s office and started proclaiming in the village that they would disturb the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

( 4 ) THE first defendant filed the written statement and died, thereafter, pendente lite. The other defendants adopted the said statement. The case of the defendants as averred inter alia in the written statement was that both the lease and contract of sale set up by the plaintiff were false and the documents were forged. The lease deed as well as the agreement to sell were never executed by late ramakotaiah and the first defendant never attested the suit agreement of sale as claimed and the plaintiff never paid any maktha either to late Ramakotaiah or to the first defendant after the demise of Late ramakotaiah. Because the first defendant sold some property to the plaintiff under a contract dated 30-4-1982 taking advantage of the consideration the plaintiff conveniently set up a false case. The plaint schedule property was joint family property and late Ramakotaiah and first defendant had half share in it. Late Ramakotaiah had no necessity to sell that property at any time and the plaintiff had no capacity to pay an amount of Rs. 28,000. 00 and purchase the property. The defendants had been getting the property cultivated and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the above pleadings, the following issues were framed at the time of the settlement of issues. 1. Whether the agreement dated 31-1-1981 is true ? 2. Whe