The unsuccessful plaintiffs preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.80 of 1989 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mahboobnagar dismissing the suit filed for recovery of possession of house bearing Door No.3-3-83 situated at Mahabubnagar.

2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the 1st plaintiff Syed Burhan, since died, was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule house bearing Door No.3-3-83, Madina, Masjid Road, Mahbubnagar. He executed an agreement of sale dated 28-06-1977 in favour of defendant. One of the stipulations is that the first plaintiff had to evict the tenant who was in occupation of the house and deliver vacant possession before registration. Accordingly, he got him evicted and delivered possession to the defendant on 08-09-1977. The date of registration was fixed to 09-09-1987. Since the defendant did not come, he cancelled the agreement, and called upon the defendant to vacate the premises. When he did not comply with his request, he filed suit O.S.No.43 of 1978 for possession and on its dismissal, he preferred A.S.No.565 of 1980. During pendency of the appeal, the defendant filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.105 of 1982. In the mean time A.S.No.565 of 1980 was disposed off by the High Court directing the trial Court to examine the matter in O.S.No.105 of 1982 afresh without influenced by the observations. After trial, O.S.No.105 of 1982 was dismissed on 30-11-1988. In spite of the dismissal, he did not handover possession. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the plaint schedule house and for damages.

3. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff died and his Legal Representatives-plaintiffs 2 to 8 were added as parties.

4. The defendant filed written statement resisting the suit. However, he admitted the agreement of sale in his favour and delivery of possession on 08-09-1977. He denied that the date of registration was fixed as 09-07-1977. He denied the cancellation of agreement on 22-03-1978. When he found that the suit house stands in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, he requested him to obtain permission of his other brothers and sisters for executing the registration of sale deed as his mother was no more. He got paper publication in Siasath on 22-09-1977. The plaintiff promised to bring consent of his brothers and sisters. However, he did not turn up to execute sale deed as agreed orally on 05-10-1977. Having waited for five months, he got issued a legal notice asking him to execute a sale deed and receive balance of sale consideration. Contrarily the plaintiff filed O.S.No.43 of 1978 and on its dismissal, preferred appeal A.S.No.565 of 1980. He contended that he was entitled to retain possession by virtue of provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) and that the agreement was in subsistence. He filed O.S.No.105 of 1982 for specific performance. Since A.S.No.565 of 1980 was pending by the date of his suit, the High Court while disposing of the appeal, observed that granting of decree for specific performance will be considered by lower Court, taking all the objections raised by both the parties. In fact, the said finding is an obiter dicta and not a binding on him. The cancellation of agreement is not correct. On dismissal of his suit, he preferred A.S.No.1624 of 1989. He was entitled to remain in possession of the suit house by virtue of Section 53-A of the Act. This suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. It is also barred by resjudicata. The plaintiff is equally not entitled to any damages. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

5. Upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the possession of the suit house?

2. Whether the possession of the defendant is wrongful and the occupation is also wrongful?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages in total of Rs.40,858/- as p