( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and Decree dated 24-03-1987 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, tirupathi, in O. S. No. 136 of 1979. Respondents 1 to 7 herein are the defendants in the suit. The other respondents have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased one or the other respondents during the pendency of the proceedings.

( 2 ) IT is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid any confusion and for better understanding of the matter.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se may be stated thus: The suit O. S. No. 136 of 1979 was filed seeking a decree for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale- dated 04-11-1978 mentioning inter alia in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 purchased the lands in an extent of Ac. 13-14 cts, ( b schedule lands for brevity) from the defendants 4 to 7 under an agreement of sale dated 05-05-1974 for a sum of rs. 1,20,000/- as per the terms stipulated therein inter alia and the defendants 4 to 7 received the sale price in full and delivered possession of the b schedule lands in part performance thereof. The execution of the sale deed alone remained. Later the defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of defendant No. 3 agreed to sell a part of the b schedule lands in an extent of ac. 9-91 cts. , ( a schedule lands for brevity) for a consideration of 90,000/ -. A contract of sale dated 4-11-1978 was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of D 3, in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as an advance thereunder while agreeing to pay the balance within two months therefrom. The former agreement of sale, dated 05-05-1974 was delivered by them to the plaintiffs at the same time. Defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and on behalf of the third defendant were extending time for the performance of the contract from time to time under separate endorsements made in regard thereto on the suit agreement of sale itself. On 23-05-1979 defendants 1 to 3 agreed that the plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- to them by 22-08-1979 and should get the sale deed executed in their names or in the name of whomsoever the plaintiffs may desire, by defendants 4 to 7 and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. They gave notice dated 11-08-1979 calling upon the defendants to get ready for registration at 10. 00 a. m. on 21-08-1979. The plaintiffs waited with money on that day at the Sub- registrar s Office, Tirupathi, expecting the defendants to come, but the defendants did not turn up. Hence the suit as aforesaid.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants 1 to 3 by filing separate statements. Defendants 5 to 7 together filed a separate statement, which was adopted by the 4th defendant. Although separate statements have been filed, the pleas taken by the defendants inter alia in the statements well neigh are same. The case of the defendants 1 to 3 was that they purchased the plaint b schedule lands under an agreement of sale dated 05-05-1974 from the defendants 4 to 7 for a sum of rs. 1,20,000/ -. Initially an amount of rs. 10,000/- was paid as an advance, and on different dates in piecemeal, paid several amounts and thus in all they paid an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the defendants 4 to 7. For payment of the balance when the first defendant approached the first plaintiff for a loan, the first plaintiff lent the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- but obtained a promissory note Dt. 29-08-1974 in the name of one Munaiah of Venkatagiri stipulating interest at 12% per annum only therein, although the actual interest to be paid was at 18%. Defendants 4 to 7 delivered possession of the b Schedule lands to the defendants 1 to 3 on 30-08-1974