The defendant in O.S. No.29 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, preferred this second appeal.

2. Originally, the suit was filed by Mathey Yakob and his wife Mathey Suvarthamma, for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits. It was pleaded that they are the owners of the suit schedule property through an agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975. During the pendency of the suit, both of them died and their legal representatives, the respondents herein, were brought on record. The sole defendant in O.S. No.29 of 1981 has filed the second appeal. During pendency of the second appeal, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

3. The respondents pleaded that the suit schedule property belongs to them and through an agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975, Ex. B-1, it was agreed to be sold to the appellants for a consideration of Rs.1 0,500/-. An amount of Rs.2,000/- was said to have been paid and the possession of the land was delivered on the date of agreement itself. Subsequently, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.3,355/- on 5-1-1979. Alleging that the appellants did not pay the balance of consideration in spite of repeated demands, the respondents got issued a legal notice dated 29-12-1980, Ex.A-1, requiring the appellants to re-deliver the possession of the suit schedule land within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same. The appellants got issued a reply, dated 24-7-1980, marked as Ex.A-4, denying the allegations in EX.A-1.

The respondents sought for the relief alleging that there were no bona fides on the part of the appellants and that they are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule land, together with mesne profits.

4. On behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed. The execution of Ex. B-1 and the developments that have taken place subsequent thereto have not been denied. It was, however, alleged that the respondents did not come forward to execute the sale deed in spite of repeated requests. They also expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the balance of consideration and performed their part of obligation. The pleadings were amended subsequently. But, the relief remained substantially the same.

5. Through its judgment, dated 21-3-1989, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S. No.41 of 1989 in the Court of the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appeal was allowed on 31-12-1993 and thereby the suit also stood decreed. Hence, the second appeal.

6. Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that his clients always insisted upon the respondents to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed and despite the same, the latter did not come forward. He contends that though there was some discrepancy as to the extent of the suit schedule property, the appellants were ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration. He submits that the lower appellate Court was not justified in taking the view that Ex. B-1 contains some interpolation or that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "the Act").

7. Sri Challa Dhanamjay, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that except taking a bald plea that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the appellants never evinced any interest, much less, deposited the balance of consideration along with the written statement. He contends that the lower appellate Court took note of the lapses on the part of the appellants and decreed the suit. He urges that no interference is called for with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.

8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues and thereafter certain additional issues.

(1) Whether the defendant committed breach of agreement of sale, dated 21-5-1975 and if so whether h