This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S. No.1489 of 2003 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale with an alternative relief of directing the defendant to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as damages with interest and costs.

3. The averments of the plaint are briefly as follows:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. An agreement of sale was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 30-08-2001. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance at the time of the sale agreement. Originally one, Laxman Rao Jaghirdhar was the owner of the suit land. After his death, his wife Chakilam Rajya Laxmi and daughter N. Padmasani Devi inherited the same and they sold an extent of Acs.2.00 in favour of the defendant's father through a document of 1962. There were some encroachments in the suit schedule site. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should clear the encroachments by investing her own resources. The plaintiff invested his funds and got the encroachments cleared and also applied for mutation in M.C.H. and got Municipal Number and applied for electricity connection. The plaintiff constructed a temporary room for watchman and employed a person to look after the property from encroachments. When land grabbers tried to encroach the property, the plaintiff gave a complaint to the Police and it was registered as crime No.133 of 2003. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract, but the defendant has been promising to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but postponing the same under some pretext or other. Due to increase in value of the land, the defendant changed his mind and got issued a registered notice dated 21-07-2003 alleging that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform her part of contract and cancelled the agreement of sale, forfeiting the advance paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a suitable reply on 25-07-2003. The defendant committed breach of contract. The plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- Hence, the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

4. The defendant filed a written statement with the following averments in brief:

The averments of the plaint are denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant's name is wrongly mentioned as Madhava Rao instead of K. Mahadeva Rao. On the same date, two agreements were taken. One agreement is for an extent of 20.06 square yards and another for 285 square yards forming part of Sy. No.128/3 situate at Mallik Enclave. The sale consideration for 20.06 square yards is mentioned as Rs.1,59,000/-, while the sale consideration for 285 square yards is mentioned as Rs.3,50,000/-. The advance alleged to have been paid is Rs.1,00,000/- for the first item and Rs.50,000/- for the second item. The plaintiff in collusion with her husband played fraud upon the defendant and could secure the signatures of the defendant without bringing to the notice of the defendant about the real facts mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 30-08-2001. The application made by the plaintiff to the Corporation for mutation and allotment of the municipal number is not to the knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff's giving complaint to the Police and registering of the crime is not to the knowledge of the defendant. In the suit agreement, there was a condition that the balance sale consideration is to be paid in two installments. The plaintiff did not come forward to pay at least one installment, out of the balance sale consideration. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly establish that she is not ready and willing to perform her part of contract for getting the registered sale deed. The origina