B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 12th June, 1995 passed in O. S. No. 1071 of 1985 by the Court of the IV Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. Of course, it is a common judgment in the said suit and also in suit O. S. No. 548 of 1990. In O. S. No. 1071 of 1985, one p. Kishanlal is the plaintiff and as he died, his legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 2 to 8. That is a suit instituted against M/s. Smt. Yasoda bai, V. Narasimha Chary and Angoori Bai claiming specific performance in respect of suit schedule building comprising of two floors and bearing municipal Nos. 21-2-146 and 21-2-156 situated at Gulzar House, Charkaman, hyderabad. In O. S. No. 548 of 1990, same P. Kishanlal is the plaintiff and on account of his death, his legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 2 to 8 and the defendants are M/s. Angoori Bai, Chaturbhuj and V. Narasimha chary. In the said suit, the relief is for the grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the ground floor mulgi bearing No. 21-2-156.

( 2 ) THE suit in O. S. No. 1071 of 1985 is based on oral agreement for consideration amount of Rs. 3. 00 lakhs and the plaintiffs case is that Rs. 25,000 was paid and thereafter the 1st defendant who is the owner has not honoured the said agreement for sale and then executed sale-deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the ground floor shop and the premises on the upper floor respectively. Both the suits were decreed by the trial court. The decree granted in O. S. No. 548 of 1990 is a question apart in these three appeals.

( 3 ) WHILE CCCA No. 112/95 is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Court below levying interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount of balance consideration amount of Rs. 2,75,000 directed to be paid within three months, CCCA No. 124 of 1995 is filed by defendants 1 and 3 against the decree granted for specific performance relating to the ground floor portion and CCCA No. 141 of 1995 is filed by the 2nd defendant aggrieved by the grant of specific performance relating to the upstairs portion.

( 4 ) ). The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit in O. S. No. 1071 of 1985.

( 5 ) ). The plea of the plaintiffs was that the deceased 1st plaintiff was the tenant protected by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act") in the ground floor shop and that rent control litigation was pending and as there was no substance in the rent control litigation and as the 1st respondent had reconciled, she, in the presence of her husband, had entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property, both ground floor shop and the upstair portion and received Rs 25,000/- and on receipt of the balance of consideration of Rs. 2,75,000, the sale-deed was to be executed. But, they had committed the breach of the agreement of sale and conveyed the ground-floor shop to the 3rd defendant and the upstair portion to the 2nd defendant in breach of the agreement of sale and that in view of the acquaintance of the parties, the agreement was not reduced into writing, but terms were settled and that an affidavit was filed by the 1st defendant in the rent control proceedings evidencing the oral agreement of sale and on account of the same, the rent control proceedings were not pursued and that they ended in dismissal and had become final, and that the 1st defendant and her husband due to ulterior motives, have conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and that the defendants 2 and 3 had knowledge of the subsisting agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and they being the purchasers with knowledge and also not for value, they are bound to join the defendant No. 1 in executing the sale deed.

( 6 ) ). The defendant No. 1 has denied the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document