( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, Ex. A1, dated 15-5-1978 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant in respect of a building bearing No. 11-4-624, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The trial Court decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed. Hence the appeal. The parties will be referred to as described in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case is that the defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs for sale of the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 2,90,000/- and accepted an advance of Rs. 30,000/- towards part of the sale consideration ; that the agreement was reduced into writing on 15-5-1978 ; that the defendant undertook to produce permission from the urban Purushottam and Co. vs. Manilal and sons, AIR 1961 S. C. 325 and Ceiling authorities, a certificate from the Income-tax authorities and a nil Encumbrance Certificate , within six months and also to handover copies of the title deeds; that having satisfied the title of the defendant, the plaintiffs entered into the said agreement and parted with an amount of rs. 30,000/-; that when the plaintiffs approached the defendent for compliance with the terms and execution of the sale deed, the defendant bagan to evade; that the plaintiffs, therefore, gave a telegraphic notice followed by a registered notice dated 9-11-1978 to the defendant demanding to comply with the terms of the agreement and that since the defendant failed to comply, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

( 3 ) IN the written statement filed, by the defendant, while admitting that he entered into the agreement of sale with the plaintiffs regarding the suit schedule property as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, stated that time was the essence of the contract; that he signed the agreement in a hurry; that he received telegraphic and registered notices and replied to the same ; that he cancelled the agreement of sale since he was not in a position to convey perfect title in view of the dispute between himself and his co-sharers regarding the ownership of the suit property ; that the 2nd plaintiff was not represented properly and so the agreement of sale is defective ; that the present suit is also defective having been filed by the two plaintiffs-the 2nd plaintiff being represented by the General Power of Attorney and the gpa having not obtained permission of the Court; that the defendant sent two cheques in a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each representing the amount paid to him as advance, to the plaintiffs while cancelling the agreement ; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the defendant can unilaterally cancel the agreement of sale and refuse specific performance? 2. Exercising rights of ownership refuse to comply with the terms of sale and resile from the contract? 3. Whether the defendant is unable to give clear title of the property to plaintiffs? 4. Whether the defendant legally bound to convey absolute and valid title of the suit property to the plaintiffs?

( 5 ) WHETHER the defendant had cancelled the agreement of sale on valid grounds?

( 6 ) WHETHER the original agreement of sale is defective and cannot be implemented?

( 7 ) WHETHER the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is defective in the absence of permission of the Court?

( 8 ) WHETHER the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of specific performance?

( 9 ) TO what relief? 5. The above issues were recast on 16-3-1981 as under : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of contract of sale dated 15-5-1978 and for possession of the suit property as prayed for? 2. Whether the agreement dated 15-5-1981 is validly cancelled by the defendant? 6. Two witnesses-PWs. 1 and 2, who are the 1st plaintiff and the GPA of the 2nd plaintiff respectively-were examined and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document