FACTS IN BRIEF:

The unseccessful plaintiff who could not get the relief of the Specific performance of the Agreement of sale in question at the hands of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur in O.S.No.1 07 of 1987, had preferred this appeal.

2. The Respondent in the appeal who is the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by that portion of the decree ordering refund of Rs. 42,500/with some interest, had preferred the cross objections raising several grounds.

3. The learned Judge on respective pleadings of the parties, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, D.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-8, came to a conclusion that the appellant as plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and a person approaching the Court with a false version is not entitled to the relief of the Specific Performance and accordingly negatived the same. However, principally, on the strength of Ex.A-8, in which the rest of the amount payable had been specified by the respondent defendant on a mathematical calculation, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that it may have to be implied that the respondent, defendant had received Rs.42,500/- and accordingly, the decree was passed for refund of