( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 13-10-1988 passed in AS No. 25 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13-7-1984 passed in OS No. 130 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Prathipadu in East Godavari District.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No. 130 of 1982. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. His case is that the defendants who are interrelated and belonged to one family are the owners of the suit property consisting of Ac. 6. 35 cents of dry land in survey number 10 and patta number 247 of Vommangi village, that they agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1,700. 00 per acre and executed an agreement of sale dated 7-8-1977 and in part performance of the said agreement of sale the defendants delivered the suit property to the plaintiff. It was agreed that the balance of sale consideration should be arrived at to the extent of land after measurement. Subsequently, the plaintiff got measured the suit land and it is Ac 6. 35 cents only. When the defendants were postponing to execute a registered sale-deed after receiving the sale consideration, the plaintiff got issued notice dated 4-6-1978 calling upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration of Rs. 9,295 and to execute the registered sale-deed. The defendants though received the said notice failed to comply with the same. It is also pleaded that the defendants received the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 9,295. 00 through the elders on 10-12-1978. The plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit land from the date of agreement and paid the same by paying taxes. The defendants made attempts to enter into the suit land on 21-8-1981 for the first time and the plaintiff resisted their illegal acts. Hence the plaintiff filed the said suit for injunction simpliciter. Resisting the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants filed their written statement contending that the agreement of sale dated 7-8-1977 was not acted upon by the plaintiff as he failed to pay the balance of sale consideration and he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, that the plaintiff issued the registered notice dated 4-6-1978 just a day prior to the date fixed to get the sale deed registered after payment of balance of sale consideration and that the plaintiff did not persue the matter nor informed these defendants as to when they should attend the Registrar s Office for performing their part of the contract. Hence, in view of the conduct of the plaintiff, the defendants re-entered into the possession of the suit property in the later part of 1978 and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the land never measured by the plaintiff and that the extent of the suit land was Ac. 8. 31 cents. The allegation that the extent of suit land was Ac. 6. 35 cents is incorrect. After receipt of the notice, the defendants raised a dispute before the elders and the defendants offered to pay back the advance amount, but, the plaintiff refused to take back the amount, and the plaintiff abandoned the contract. Hcncc, the defendants were advised by the elders to continue in possession of the suit land and as such they did not issue any reply to the plaintiff and the plaintiff never questioned the possession of the defendants when they re-entered into the suit land and the plaintiff s claim for specific performance of the agreement of safe is barred by time and that the plaintiff never offered balance of sale consideration as alleged. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for.

( 3 ) THE tria