This Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 1987 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the defendant and for perpetual injunction retraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.

3. The averments of the plaint discloses that the defendant offered to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs.1,300/- per acre. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and an agreement of sale covered by Ex.A-1 was executed by the defendant, wherein it was mentioned that the plaintiff paid Rs.1,500/- towards earnest money and the possession of the property was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff on the same day in part performance of the contract and since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the land. The defendant again approached the plaintiff on 16-08-1979 and requested to pay Rs.1,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid the said amount in the presence of PW-2. Again the plaintiff paid Rs.5,000/- on 05-03-1981 in the presence of PW-2. But the defendant did not pass any receipts for the payments made subsequent to the agreement of sale. The plaintiff, after calculating the amount, paid the balance of consideration of Rs.1,112/- on 10-01-1982 and requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. The defendant was evading executing the sale deed on some pretext or other and tried to sell away the property to third parties. The plaintiff demanded the defendant in February, 1987 for execution of a registered sale deed. But, the defendant issued Ex.A-14 registered notice on 03-03-1987 with false and untenable allegations. The plaintiff gave Ex.A-15 reply notice on 17-03-1987 and filed the present suit for the reliefs as indicated above.

4. The defendant contended, through his written statement, that the execution of the agreement of sale, receipt of earnest money of Rs.1,500/- and consideration for the sale is not disputed. The plaintiff did not choose to pay the balance of sale consideration at the instance of the son of the defendant. The other son of the defendant by name Sudharshan pursued the matter. On demand of Sudharshan also, the plaintiff failed to pay the balance of sale consideration. The said Sudharshan paid a sum of Rs.14,400/- towards the land bearing Sy.Nos.52 and 207 to the defendant and his other sons and got executed an agreement and also a receipt on 03-02-1984 in his favour and in consideration thereof, the land bearing Sy.Nos.52 and 207 were given to Sudharshan by all the share holders including the defendant. Thus the agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled and the suit lands have been given to his son Sudharshan and in pursuance of that, the said Sudharshan came into possession of the suit land and the entire transaction took place within the knowledge of the plaintiff and PW-2 after amicable settlement between the parties. But subsequently, when differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendant's son Sudharshan in Febarry, 1987, the plaintiff started asserting his rights on the basis of the agreement. Therefore, the defendant got issued a legal notice, dated 03-03-1987 for cancellation of the agreement. The suit is barred by limitation, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues and trial was conducted. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. The defendant examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-11. After considering the said evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit by granting the relief of specific performance and injunction on condition of the plaintiff paying the balance of sale consideration to the defendant on or before 30-11-1994 and the defendant shall execute the registered sale