( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 in the suit O. S. No. 53 of 1983 on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Guntur are the appellants herein who have filed the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit on 18-8-1989.

( 2 ) THE first appellant-first defendant died pending the appeal and hence his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 3 and 4.

( 3 ) THE respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit O. S. No. 53 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale dated 7-1-1976 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property and for possession of the same and in default the Court to execute the same in favour of the plaintiff and put him in possession of the same or in the alternative for damages for a sum of rs. 99,491/- for breach of contract of sale dated 7-1-1976 and for other reliefs.

( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

( 5 ) THE respective pleadings of the parties in nut-shell are as specified hereunder: the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac. 5-52 cents out of an extent of Ac. 6- 10 cents in Ramachandrapuram Agraharam and the defendants are the owners of the said property and the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property in pursuance of a contract of sale dated 7-1-1976 for a sum of Rs. 1,04,880/- and received a sum of rs. 10,501/- as part of consideration and as per the terms of the agreement of sale the balance of sale consideration should be paid within three months thereafter i. e. , 7-4-1976 and the defendants to execute and register the sale deed and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff. It was also further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the contract of sale but as the transaction relates to property which is within Guntur Town the alienation to be valid should be with the prior permission of Urban Land Ceiling Authority. The parties though fully aware of the same, did not make the same in the contract of sale itself, Nontheless according to law, the person who has to perform the contract, execute the sale deed has to obtain the said permission at his own expense and execute a valid sale deed and register it. Thus, the three months period fixed was felt perhaps insufficient and hence the contract itself provided that before 7-4-1976 the plaintiff has to pay 85% of the consideration including the sum of Rs. 10,501/- already paid on 7-1-1976 whereupon the land should be got measured by the defendants and should be delivered possession of and thereafter execute the sale deed or deeds as per the directions of the plaintiff either in his name or in the name of others as directed by him. Since then, till today the defendants have not chosen to move in the direction and obtain the necessary permission from the Urban Ceiling Authority in spite of repeated demands. They were simply putting it off stating that it has not been received. As days are passing by, the plaintiff is constrained to doubt the bona fides of the defendants as the prices are going up and the conduct of the defendants was creating a suspicion in the mind of the plaintiff that they are trying to resile from the contract. So he got a registered notice dated 6-2-1983 issued to the defendants calling upon them to specifically perform the contract of the sale and put him in possession of the property. The first defendant received the same on 7-2-1983, while the second defendant evaded the same. They gave a reply dated 22-2-1983 by which they alleged that the plaintiff did not and could not pay 85% of the sale consideration on or before 7-4-1976 whereupon only the other steps of measuring the land, payment of balance and execution of the sale deed etc. , were agreed upon, that the plaintiff defaulted that in